
Class. 
Boi*- 



l-(Q.n4 



A 



OFFICIAL UONA.TION. 



57th Congress, ) SENATE. j Report 

Id Session. ) ^^ (No. 945 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Ul^IYEESITY 



OF 



THE UI^ITED STATES. 



Apeil 1, 1902.— Submitted by Mr. Deboe, from the Committee to Establish 
the University of the United States, and ordered to be printed. 

[To accompany S. 3943.] 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1902. 



JAN 29 IHU3 
D.ofD, 






CONTENTS. 



Report of the Senate Committee to Establish the University of the United 
States 5 

Including — 

Reasons for a University of the United States 6 

Unanimous action of the National Educational Association in 1869, 1870, 
1871, and 1874 10 

Emphatic action of said National Educational Association in 1901 11 

Unanimous action of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges 

and Experiment Stations, in 1901 12 

Action of the United States Senate and its Committee since 1890 15 

Conditions have changed, but for the better 16 

Why the long delay?.. 16 

The Carnegie statement as to his original and present intent 31 

Present status of the National University enterprise 32 

Hearings in support of the national university measure (supplemental to the 
hearings by the members of the executive council of the national university 
committee, published in the Kyle report, No. 429, Fifty-fourth Congress, 
first session, part 1 ) by — 

Dr. Chas. D. Walcott, Director United States Geological Survey 35 

Mr. W J McGee, ethnologist in charge, Bureau of American Ethnology.. 36 

Ex-Gov. John "W. Hoyt, chairman national university committee 45 

A University at Washington, by Hon. Andrew D. White, United States ambas- 
sador to Germany 49 

The Urgent Need of a National University, by President David Starr Jordan, 

of Leland Stanford Junior University 56 

Discussion of the report of the "committee of fifteen" before the national 
council of the National Educational Association at Detroit, in July, 1901, by 
President James H. Baker, University of Colorado, and Ex-Governor 

John W. Hoyt, chairman national university committee 61-64 

Address on a National University, by President .Joseph Swain, of the Indiana 

State University, before the Indiana State Teachers' Association, 1901 68 

A National University: a Study, by William A. Mowry, of Massachusetts 76 

The Constitutionality of a National University, by Edmund J. James, presi- 
dent American Academy of Political and Social Science 82 

Letters on a National University by — 

Rev. Frank Sewall, Washington, D. C, in review of Messrs. Carnegie and 

Alex. Graham Bell 91-95 

Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, chairman national university committee 95 

The Proposed National University, by Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, chairman 

national university committee, review of Chas. D. AValcott 98 

List of members of the National University Committee 108 

Three hundred letters from prominent citizens indorsing the national uni- 
versity measure (being supplemental to 400 such letters published in the 

Kyle report. No. 429, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, parts 1 and 3) 118 

3 



REPORT OF COMMITTEE. 



The Committee to Establish the University of the United States, to 
whom was referred the bill (S. 3943) to establish the university of the 
United States, having considered the same, report as follows: 

It is already well understood that the importance of a national uni- 
versity, at the capital of the country, has been urged almost without 
interruption, and by great numbers of the most eminent of Americans, 
from even before the inauguration of the Government, and in all 
periods of American history. 

It is also undeniable that the interest in the proposition to establish 
such an institution so increased, notwithstanding the delays of Con- 
gress, that, having in the past enlisted national organizations, scientilic, 
educational, and patriotic, it culminated at length in a popular move- 
ment, led by a national committee, including in its membership not 
only such educators as the presidents of leading colleges and universi- 
ties to the number of over two hundred, and the State superintendents 
of all the States, but also other hundreds of the foremost of statesmen, 
jurists, ecclesiastics, scientists, the heads of national organizations, and 
men of affairs. 

And it is further true that bills to establish a national university 
prepared by those giving direction to the general movement have 
been several times unanimously reported by committees of the Con- 
gress to which they were referred; once by the House Committee on 
Education, and twice by the Senate committee especially created on 
motion of that distinguished jurist and statesman. Senator George F. 
Edmunds, in the year 1890, for the purpose of considering the whole 
subject and of giving proper form to a measure which it would seem 
to have been the purpose of the Senate to approve, when duly perfected, 
almost without dissent. 

Nevertheless, during the long inaction of the University Committee 
(1897-1901) queries have arisen in the minds of some touching the 
original proposition — the changed conditions, the actual present need, 
possible interference, and embarrassments, if the university were once 
established, etc. And why ? In the opinion of the National University 
Committee of four hundred, as stated by its chairman, not alone because 

5 



6 CJlSriVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

of the misapprehensions which have naturally come of the inaction of 
the committee, but also because they less than f ullj^ realize our country's 
present deficiencies, the distinguishing features of a true university, 
the duty of the Government in this high regard, and the reasons why 
a great and true university, free from all local or religious prejudice, 
should be founded by the Government, at Washington — because they 
fail to realize: 

I. That, in the words of the eminent Thomas Hill, former president 
of Harvard, "A great and true university is [still] a leading want of 
American education." 

n. That the offices of a true universit}^ are these : 

1. To supplement existing institutions by supplying full courses of 
graduate instruction in every department of learning. 

3. By its central faculties and cluster of professional schools of .high- 
est grade to represent at all times the sum of human knowledge. 

3. To lead in the upbuilding of new professions by its applications 
of science. 

4. To lead the world in the work of research and investigation. 
HI. That the Government should establish such a university because: 

1. Neither existing institutions nor the great denominational univer- 
sities in prospect can meet the demand. The nation only is equal to 
the founding of such a university as the nation needs. 

2. The nation needs its influence upon the Government service. 

3. The American system of education can only be made complete 
by the crowning university it lacks, as a means of coordination and 
inspiration. 

4. A national university would powerfully strengthen the patriotic 
sentiment of the countr3\ 

5. A national university would more strongly than any other attract 
men of genius from every quarter of the world to its professorships 
and fellowships, thus increasing the cultured intellectual forces of both 
institution and country. 

6. A national university would especially attract students of high 
character from many lands, whose return after years of contact with 
free institutions would promote the cause of liberal government every- 
where. 

7. The founding of a national university would be, therefore, a most 
fitting thing for a great nation ambitious to lead the world in civiliza- 
tion. 

IV. That the reasons for founding such university at Washington 
are: 

1. Washington was designated by the Father of His Country in his 
bequest of property in aid of its endowment and by his selection of 
land for a site. 

2. Washington is the only sufiicient and convenient spot where the 
Government has both exclusive and perpetual jurisdiction. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 7 

3. There are in the Government departments and connected therewith 
vast amounts of material that could be made auxiliary, and which, 
being now but partiall}^ utilized, are in some part an enormous capital 
running" to waste. 

4. There are hundreds of experts in the departments whose services 
could be more or loss utilized with mutual advantage. 

5. Such a university in Washington would exert a great influence 
upon the National Government itself in every branch and department. 

Your committee would especially emphasize the facts that the 
national university would fulfill offices vital to the nation, which can 
not be fulfilled by any other institution; that a supplemental univer- 
sity of this high character would surely help and not hinder any other 
institution; that it would lift the United States from their secondary 
rank in education to the foremost place among the nations; and that 
the pending bill asks for no appropriation in any form — simply the 
right to be and become. 

These declarations appear so clear and convincing that the case 
might be rested upon them alone; and yet its importance is such that 
3^our committee have been led to make new researches and a fresh dis- 
cussion of the whole subject, especially (1) into the soundness of the 
reasons which led to the earnest, persistent, and self-sacrificing efi'orts 
for a central and national universit}^ made by the founders of the 
Republic and by so many others alike eminent in public affairs, gener- 
ation after generation; (2) into the reasons for the delay of more than 
a century; (3) into the university proposition as it now stands, and 
the reasons given by the national university committee, and other 
friends of the enterprise, for continuing to urge the measure upon the 
attention of the Senate. It should also be stated that in making this 
new investigation your committee have drawn very fully upon the 
national university committee for the historic facts presented, and for 
their present views, as also upon adverse discussions whenever found. 

MOTIVES OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND OTHER 

EARLY PATRIOTS. 

It is agreed that among all the patriots who wrested the American 
colonies from the hand of British tyrann}'' none had broader or more 
far-reaching views of the provision to be made by the founders of the 
new nation than he who had led their heroic armies to final victor3\ 
And with him the thought most deeply impressed was that the intelli- 
gence of the people must be made the corner-stone of the Republic. 
Wealth of resources, unparalleled energy, and ambitious aims, however 
worthy, must surely come to naught, in time, without knowledge on 
the part of its self-governing members. Nor could a wise framing of 
its policies and the surest shaping of its destinies, much less a place of 
high dignity and honor among the nations of the earth, be hoped for 



8 CNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

without the means at home of such deep and thorough culture as 
stands for a knowledge of all human experience; of those principles of 
government which give the best assurance of securit}^, prosperity, and 
peace, as well as of all that science, literature, and the arts have 
achieved — such training of the powers, moreover, as would best insure 
the progress of civilization by means of invention and discovery. 

Washington carefully surveyed the whole field, and when he came, 
first, to the presidency of the Constitutional Convention, and finally to 
the Presidency of the United States, was, by virtue of those very 
elements of character which made him immortal, resolved that the 
means of education, in its broadest and highest sense, should be recog- 
nized as a leading consideration at the very beginning of the Republic. 
Although not himself a scholar, in the academic sense, he had made 
himself familiar with the educational status of foreign lands, and, as 
he surveyed the field of the colonies, found gratification in the work 
•^ already done at old Harvard, William and Mar}^, Yale, Columbia, 
Princeton, Washington and Lee, Dartmouth, Hampden-Sidney, Rut- 
gers, Brown, and Pennsylvania. Still, it was plain enough that not 
even the foremost of them had passed, or were soon likely to cross, 
the boundary line of the college; and no less plain that, if they had, 
they could never hope to meet all the important demands of the coun- 
try in the field of the higher learning — could never fulfill such special 
and all-important offices as he had in view, and as are still in view, for 
the proposed national university at Washington. 

Washington was not pleased to have the more gifted, advanced, and 
ambitious of our young men to leave their own country and seek 
in foreign lands, at great expense, and at the serious risk of acquiring 
false ideas of society and government, the higher education denied 
them at home; nor did he believe that in the time to come the Ameri- 
can people would be content to remain borrowers from the other 
nations of the things which are highest — of the things, moreover, 
especially necessary to our security, success, and true greatness as a 
republic. 

Accordingly we find that Washington's conception of a national uni- 
versity at the very first, was that of an exclusively graduate institution 
. / at the National Capital. It was to be so high in rank as to afi'ord to 
college graduates— and to such only — those facilities for the very 
highest studies which otherwise must be sought in foreign lands. 
Moreover, it was to be so related to the other educational institutions 
in the several States as to be to them a source of practical aid and of 
new inspiration, while at the same time equipping men for the best 
of public service, both at home and abroad, for the solution of difficult 
problems important to the Government, and for work of the highe"st 
order in the several great fields of research and investigation, with a 
view to the general progress of mankind. In other words, it was to 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 9 

give greater security to our liberties, contribute to our intellectual 
independence as a self-governing- people, and insure to us an earlier 
and more enduring frontage among the advanced nations of the earth. 

Of course a scheme so grand and beneficent readily found supporters 
among the intelligent, heroic, and ambitious patriots, who, having led 
the Revolution to a triumphant issue, were already joining hands for 
the beginning of a great nation. Their illustrious commander's views 
and aspirations were shared and warmly indorsed b}^ his comrades in 
arms as well as by the public journals of the time, and b}^ all the more 
thoughtful of those who were to have part in the constructive work to 
be undertaken. 

The considerations which moved Washington in this great matter 
were those which later moved the Constitutional Convention over which 
he presided in 1787, and which so strongly moved man}^ of the dele- 
gates, notably James Madison, Charles Pickering, John Adams, and 
Benjamin Franklin, to urge the incorporation of a suitable provision 
for such a provision in the Constitution itself as a means of making its 
realization more sure. 

Such also were the considerations which moved Dr. Benjamin Rush, 
signer of the Declaration of Independence, in framing his address to 
the people of the United States, and Samuel Blodgett in the pages of 
his work on economics ("Economica"). 

Such were the considerations that kept the university enterprise so 
constantly in the mind of Washington during and after his eight years 
of service as President of the United States; that inspired his several 
messages on the subject to the Congress, and his many earnest letters, 
formal and special, to Thomas Jefferson and Vice-President Adams, to 
Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, his Secretaries of State, 
to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Governor Brooke, 
of Virginia, and others. Such, too, were the considerations that moved 
him to make selection of a site for the universitj^ in the cit}^ of Wash- 
ington; and that finally led to the provision in his last will and testa- 
ment for a bequest of $25,000, in the then valuable stocks of the Potomac 
Company, as the beginning of what he hoped would become a sufficient 
endowment — and evidentl}^ with no question that Congress would very 
soon establish the institution and make any provision that might be 
necessary to the further security of the stocks with which he had begun 
the endowment. 

Such were the motives that influenced Thomas Jefferson to his 
cooperation with W^ashington, and afterwards, as President, to give 
the utmost prominence to the university proposition in his discussions 
with members of his Cabinet and in his message of December 2, 1806, 
to recommend early action, for the further reason that it was then 
possible to endow the institution with lands that would be "among- 
the earliest to produce the necessary income." 



10 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Such were the high considerations that made James Madison, while 
President of the United States no less than when delegate in the Con- 
stitutional Convention, so tenacious of his ground that he strongl}^ 
recommended the establishment of the university in his first, seventh, 
and last messages. 

Such, in short, were the considerations that have insured to Wash- 
ington's proposition the sympathy of no less than nine Presidents of 
the United States, of whom many were not only earnest in their action, 
but also readjT^ with material aid. 

It was because of the high character of the institution proposed and 
its recognized value that Samuel Blodgett was enabled to notify the 
House of Representatives in 1795 that subscriptions toward a national 
university had already been made to the number of 18,000 and that a 
sum amounting to $30,000 had been actually received. 

Such were the considerations that prompted Gustavus Scott, William 
Thornton, and Alexander White, commissioners appointed under the 
" Act to establish the temporary and permanent seat of the Govern- 
ment of the United States," to memorialize Congress in 1796 for the 
enactment of a law "authorizing proper persons to receive pecuniary 
donations, and to hold estates, real and personal, which may be 
granted, for the use of the university about to be established " — a peti- 
tion so ably championed by James Madison, chairman, and b}^ others 
of the committee to whom it was referred, that it finall}^ failed, through 
postponement, by only one vote. 

It was for such a university that a special committee of the House 
of Representatives in 1816 urged favorable action upon President 
Madison's recommendation touching the selection and appropriation of 
lots in the District of Columbia, and presented a bill for its immediate 
establishment. 

It was for just such an institution that a little later on the most 
eminent men of science throughout the countr}^, such as Louis Agassiz, 
O. M. Mitchell, Richard A. Dana, Benjamin Peirce, and Alexander 
Dallas Bache, spoke and wrote during a period of several years, and 
rallied the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 
its behalf. 

It was for such a university that the National Educational Associa- 
tion — upon the showing made by one of its members. United States 
Commissioner John W. Hoyt, after an exhaustive educational tour of 
Europe and America, in 1867-1869, and full report thereon by request 
of the Government — took the matter up, in 1869, and created a general 
committee, with authority to submit reports and prepare a bill. 

Said committee. Dr. John W. Hoyt, chairman, submitted three suc- 
cessive reports, each of them unanimously agreed to in committee and 
unanimously adopted by the great association, the second of which 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 11 

submitted the following outline of the national university, as then con- 
ceived after a most careful study: 

It was not deemed important in submitting our first report, nor is it necessary in 
this, to mark the details of what the institution should be. * * * It may be proper, 
however, to state in general terms: 

(1) That it should be broad enough to embrace every department of science, liter- 
ature, and the arts, and every real profession. 

(2) That it should be high enough to supplement the highest existing institutions 
of the country, and to embrace within its field of instruction the utmost limits of 
human knowledge. 

(3) That, in the interest of truth and justice, it should guarantee equal privileges 
to all duly qualified applicants for admission to the courses of instruction, and equal 
rights, as well as the largest freedom, to all earnest investigators in that vast domain 
which lies outside the limits of acknowledged science. 

(4) That it should be so constituted and established as to command the hearty 
support of the American people, regardless of section, party, or creed. 

(5) That its material resources should be vast enough to enable it not only to fur- 
nish, and that either freely or at nominal cost, the best instruction the world can 
afford, but also to provide the best-known facilities for the work of scientific investi- 
gation, together with endowed fellowships and honorary fellowships, open respec- 
tively to the most meritorious graduates and to such investigators, whether native or 
foreign, as, being candidates therefor, shall have distinguished themselves most in 
the advancement of knowledge. 

(6) That it should be so coordinated in plan with the other institutions of the 
country as not only in no way to conflict with them, but, on the contrary, to become 
at once a potent agency for their improvement and the means of creating a complete, 
harmonious, and efficient system of American education. * * * 

The idea of a national university is as old as the nation, has had the fullest sanc- 
tion of the wisest and best men of succeeding generations, and is in perfect harmony 
with the policy and practice of the Government. 

The permanent committee of the National Educational Association, 
consisting- of Dr. John W. Hoyt, of Wisconsin, chairman; ex Presi- 
dent Thomas Hill, Massachusetts; Mr. E. L. Godkin, New York; 
Hon. W. P. Wickersham, State superintendent of public instruction, 
Pennsylvania; Dr. Barnas Sears, Virginia; Col. D. F. Boyd, president 
University of Louisiana; Dr. Daniel Read, president University of 
Missouri; Dr. W. F. Phelps, president State normal school, Winona, 
Minn.; ex-Governor A. C. Gibbs, Oregon; Hon. Newton Bateman, 
State superintendent of public instruction, Illinois; with the following 
ex officio members: The president of the National Educational Asso- 
ciation, the National Commissioner of Education, the president of the 
National Academ}^ of Sciences, the president of the National Association 
for the Advancement of Science, and the president of the American 
Social Science Association; with the help of Senators Charles Sumner, 
Timothy O. Howe, J. W. Patterson, Matthew H. Carpenter, John J. 
Ingalls, W. B. Allison, L. Q. C. Lamar, and James A. Garfield; Profs. 
Joseph Henry, Spencer F. Baird, and Louis Agassiz, and others, 
ofl'ered a bill, upon which the House committee submitted a strong 



12 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

and unanimous report on March 3, 1873, from which the following- 
passages are taken: 

It is unnecessary to frame an argument to show the special importance of university- 
culture in a country like ours, where the administration of public affairs, the molding 
of our political institutions, and hence the destinies of the Republic, are intrusted to 
representatives chosen by the people; where, moreover, as nowhere else, there must 
constantly arise new problems demanding the sure light of science — material, social, 
and political — for their solution. It is not enough that the American Republic be 
distinguished by the universality of common education; it should be no less distin- 
guished by the prevalence of thorough culture. * * * 

Passing now from the question of need to the question of how that want is to be 
met, the committee are satisfied that it can not be by any institution at present exist- 
ing, for these reasons: 

(1) That none has or is likely to have the pecuniary resources essential to the 
highest and most complete university work. 

(2) That none can be made so entirely free from objection on both denomiaiational 
and local grounds as to insure the patronage of the people, regardless of section or 
partisan relationship. 

(4) That no institution not established upon neutral ground, or other than national 
in the important sense of being established by the people and for the people of the 
whole nation, and in part for a national end, could possibly meet all the essential 
demands to be made upon it. * * * 

The committee acknowledge the force of these views of the founders of the Gov- 
ernment, and hence are prepared to indorse the sentiments expressed in the pream- 
ble to the bill under consideration, namely, that "it is the duty of every government 
to furnish to its people facilities for the highest culture," and that "such facilities 
can not be otherwise so well provided for the people of this nation as by founding a 
university so comprehensive in plan as to include every department of learning, so 
high as to embrace the limits of knowledge, so national in aim as to promote concord 
among all sections, and so related to other institutions as to promote the efficiency 
and with them form a complete system of American education." 

Thenceforward there was continuous advocacy of the university- 
enterprise by other eminent men, such as United States Senator G. W. 
Wright, of Iowa; President James McCosh, of Princeton; President 
George P. Ha3'S, of Washington and Jejfferson College, Pennsylvania; 
President Daniel Read, of the University of Missouri; President Ulys- 
ses S. Grant, in his message of December 1, 1873; United States Sen- 
ator Timothy O. Howe, of Wisconsin; President and Ambassador 
Andrew D. White (on many occasions); the editor of the American 
Journal of Education; G. Brown Goode, of the Smithsonian Institu- 
tion; President Rutherford B. Haj^es, in his messages of 1877 and 
1878; Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior; President 
Charles Kendall Adams, of Cornell and Wisconsin Universities: Albert 
Haupert, of the University of Berlin, Germany; Prof. Herbert B. 
Adams, of Johns Hopkins University; Prof. James C. Welling, of 
Columbian University; Dr. Otis T. Mason, a curator of the National 
Museum; Supt. William A. Mowry, editor of Education, Salem, Mass. ; 
ex-United States Senators James R. Doolittle, of Wisconsin; Patrick 
Walsh, of Georgia; James F. Wilson, of Iowa; Carl Schurz, of Mis- 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 13 

souri; William F. Vilas, Wisconsin; J. B. Henderson, of Missouri; 
Ambassador Wayne MacVeagh, and a great rmmber of others. 

It was this abiding interest in the Washington idea of a national 
university that finally led Senator George F. Edmunds to the begin- 
ning of systematic efforts in Congress for its establishment: 

(1) By presenting to the Senate, on May 14, 1890, "A bill to estab- ^ 
lish the University of the United States." 

(2) By securing the formation of a Senate Select Committee to 
Establish the University of the United States—a committee of which 
Redfield Proctor was the first chairman, with Senator Sherman and 
seven others as colleagues. 

(3) By securing the permanency of said committee, with authority 
to act during the recess of Congress. 

(4) By after-cooperation with said committee as a member of the 
national university committee, and of its executive council. 

It was a deep appreciation of the ends to be attained by the proposed 
national university that led the Human Freedom League to favorable 
action in its behalf at its Philadelphia meeting in 1891, and that moved 
the Pan-Republic Congress of 1891 to adopt strong appreciative reso- 
lutions in support of the movement and to appoint a national commit- 
tee for its promotion. 

It was a conviction of the importance of a national university that 
led ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, former chairman of the national 
university committee of the National Educational Association, also 
chairman of the national university committee of the Pan-Republic 
Congress, to present to the Senate his "memorial in regard to a 
national university" in 1892. 

It was a like realization of the need of a national university that 
l^rompted the Senate committee to approve the unanimous report upon 
the Edmunds bill, submitted by its chairman. Senator Proctor, in 1893; 
to the like unanimous report of said committee (though somewhat 
differently constituted) submitted by Senator Hunton in 1894, and 
that later gained a hearing upon the bill by the Senate; Senators Hun- 
ton, Vilas, and Kyle being its advocates. 

It was also this same deepening desire and purpose of the patriotic 
educators, men of science, and statesmen of the country that brought 
about the enlargement of the aforesaid committee of the Pan-Republic 
Congress, under the new title of National Committee to promote the 
establishment of the University of the United States, and to the forma- 
tion by it of an executive council, which council, since the decease of 
ex-Senator and ex-Attorney-General Garland, Dr. G. Brown Goode, 
of the Smithsonian Institution; Dr. Gardiner G. Hubbard, presi- 
dent of the National Geographic Society, and Dr. William Pepper, 
€x -provost of the University of Pennsylvania (all of whom had part 



14 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

in the framing of bill S. 1202, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session), is 
composed of the following members: 

The Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States. 

Ex- United States Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont. 

Hon. Andrew D. White, United States ambassador to Germany. 

Ex-Governor John Lee Carroll, general president Society of Sons 
of American Revolution. 

Gen. Horace Porter, late president-general Society of Sons of 
American Revolution, ambassador to France. 

Ex-United States Senator Eppa Hunton, of Virginia. 

Ex-United States Senator J. B. Henderson, Missouri and District of 
Columbia. 

Col. Wilbur R. Smith, of Kentucky University. 

Gen. John Eaton, ex-United States Commissioner of Education, etc., 
District of Columbia. 

Lieut. Gen. Nelson A. Miles, commanding the Army. 

Hon. Hilary A. Herbert, ex-Secretary of the Navy. 

Prof. S. P. Langley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Prof. Simon Newcomb, late Director of the Nautical Almanac. 

Hon. John A. Kasson, ex-member of Congress, ex-United States 
minister to Austria. 

Hon. Oscar S. Straus, ex-United States minister to Turkey. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, chairman of the national university 
committee. 

It was, moreover_, a spirit of determination that induced said execu- 
tive council of the national committee, at the end of 1895, to hold a 
meeting of several lengthy sessions, the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, 
Chief Justice of the United States, presiding, and every member but 
one being present, to ofier the new bill (S. 1202, Fifty-fourth Congress, 
first session) presented to the Senate immediately afterwards, and to 
support the same by the arguments of most of its members personally 
made before the Senate committee in January, 1896. 

And it was an appreciation of the measure so presented that led to 
favorable action by the Senate committee, and to the very full report, 
accompanied by said hearings and by some 300 or 400 letters from dis- 
tinguished citizens in earnest support of the measure, which Senator 
Kyle, then chairman of the committee, submitted to the Senate on 
March 10, 1896; which report, owing to the subsequent absence of 
the chairman and repeated assurances of early return, was never called 
up in the Senate. 

-Finally, in so far as the Senate is concerned, it was to this same end 
that the Senate committee as constituted during the years 1897 to 1901 
amended, then agreed, without dissent, upon the new bill (S. 3330, 
Fifty-sixth Congress) introduced by Senator Depew on February 26, 



UNIVERSITY UF THK UNITED STATES. ' 15 

1900, and prepared a report thereon; which said amended bill, report 
and accompanying papers were never submitted to the Senate. 

It can not be denied that this array of facts, covering- more than a 
century of time and presenting so remarkable a succession of earnest 
and distinguished advocates, has a meaning, and should carry weight 
in determining the fate of the measure before us. 

But, on the other hand, the question has arisen: 

HAVE NOT CONDITIONS CHANGED IN ALL THESE YEARS? 

To this the national committee's answer is emphatic and seems suffi- 
cient, namel}^: 

"Yes; conditions have changed very materially, and this accounts, 
in chief part, for the growth of interest in the university cause. 

"It is true that when General Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James 
Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others who were emi- 
nent among the founders of the Republic began their efforts the 
country was of limited area and had but small resources for the edu- 
cation of its 3,000,000 people. It had a dozen or so of colleges, but 
these were in large part preparatory schools for elementary work, 
with but small college classes, few professors, and scanty facilities gen- 
erally. But the demand for a national university at Washington was 
not made for these reasons. It was not the intent of true patriots to 
relieve the people of the States by building a great college and main- 
taining it at the expense of the Government, thus creating both a 
relief institution and a favored competitor with the local schools, and 
doing the whole country more harm than good. It was rather, as has 
been shown, first, to supplement other institutions by doing for the 
graduates the}^ might send out the further service they could not ren- 
der, and secondly, to meet those high and special demands of people 
and government which none but a crowning university, with special 
and national aims, could hope to do. 

"With increase of territory and of population, with consequent 
development, there was also a corresponding increase of schools and 
colleges; but still the special and national needs remained unsatisfied. 
Not onl}^ so, but the more common demand for better facilities and 
opportunities for higher studies was also without satisfaction right 
along through the years. Colleges calling themselves universities 
multiplied on ever}^ hand, but the demand for post-graduate facilities 
was not met to a noticeable extent until long after the middle of the 
century — was not even verj^ earnestly attempted to any considerable 
extent until there came a revival of the old appeal for a true univer- 
sity at the capital of the nation. 

"It was then, near the end of the third quarter of the century, that 
Mr. Johns Hopkins began a i institution in which the higher and 



16 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

special training should be a prominent feature. The more important 
of the older institutions were thus aroused to new effort for enlarge- 
ment, and undertook as never before some of the functions of a uni- 
versity. Later still, and but recentl}", \ et other institutions, more 
after the plan o r Johns Hopkins, were founded, and have received, and 
are receiving, very considerable endowments from princely givers like 
Messrs. Vanderbilt, Leland Stanford, John D. Rockefeller, and Mrs. 
Phebe A. Hearst. 

"Nevertheless, after more than a hundred years of development it 
remains true that, in the highest sense — nay, jn the Washingtonian 
sense — there is not a single university in the Western World, Aye, this 
great Republic, with its boundless material resources, its population 
of seventy-five millions, characterized by an energy and genius un- 
matched, its newly acquired possessions, and its new ambition to be 
first in power, is, like the lesser republics of Central and South 
America, still content to be a borrower of the things most precious 
from our less numerous, less wealthy, and less powerful neighbors in 
the Old World. In plainer speech, while counting ourselves already'' 
richer than the richest, if not indeed mightier than the mightiest of 
the nations, we seem to be more eagerly than ever striving for j^et 
other sources of wealth and power, as if these alone constituted the 
greatness of a nation, and so leave thousands of our aspiring college 
graduates to find as they can the intellectual advantages we fail to 
supply them at home, and to glory in foreign bequests ! 

' ' It would seem that, with this new growth of power and importance 
in the world, thought most serious should now be given to the means 
absolutely necessary to a corresponding intellectual independence — nay, 
to an acknowledged supremacy in all the higher arts of civilization." 

This reasoning is surely sound, and we must admit that the change 
of conditions since the time of Washington has indeed been such as to 
increase rather than diminish the demand for every possible means 
requisite to the highest culture, both for its own sake, as a condition 
of civilized life, and because it would so help the United States to a 
place of highest honor among the nations. True, a national university 
alone could not do all things, but it would furnish the keystone to the 
arch in American education and meet other high demands which can 
not be fully met in any other way. 

WHY, THEN, THIS DELAY OF A CENTURY? 

The question of delay imposes a task not diflicult, though tedious, 
for the reasons are many. 

Much as we honor the patriots of the Revolution and the men who 
did their best in founding the Government and building the nation — 
all of them — ^it is be3^ond question that a majority of the Delegates and 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. l7 

Members of the National Legislature were both detifient in learning 
and without knowledge of w-hat post-graduate learning meant, and 
hence could not appreciate the anxious interest of the better-informed 
leaders. Possibly in the poverty of the time they also counted the 
cost, little as the several presidents had proposed to do for the institu- 
tion financially. Nor is it impossible that some of them, unable to 
realize the boon it would be to all the people, to all other educational 
agencies, and to the Government, thought the founding of it would 
be more or less a favoring of the more fortunate, or a sort of class 
legislation in the interest of the few and best conditioned. Nay, it is 
not altogether certain that these same suggestions could not with equal 
justice be applied to the later times. 

Still another reason for the delay most certainly lies in the fact that 
such a measure, having in it neither a personal advantage, pecuniary 
or political, nor a possible local enhancement of values for any of its 
constituents, would be likely to suffer from neglect on the part of 
many a legislator already occupied with matters of more personal inter- 
est and pressing concern. 

And there is yet another, in the fact that every measure of less than 
stirring interest, and yet requiring appropriations in some form, as the 
first university bills did, needs appreciative advocates in number on the 
ground to push it, men who will stay with it and spend their time^ 
energy, and money for it without stint, especially when the demands 
upon the Treasury are great. And hence it is that the several univer- 
sity bills have been luore difficult to interest legislators in than many 
others, even in the held of education. For example, the agricultural- 
college bill had the several advantages of an able and determined leader 
in the Senate, a great number of colleges and universities to be strength- 
ened bj^the increased endowments it would give, a host of agricultural 
societies readily enlisted, and a still greater army of intelligent farmers, 
miners, and mechanics, as well as many lovers of science for its own 
sake and for its numberless possibilities, all ready and eager to work 
day and night for the passage of the Morrill bill, which became a law 
in 1862. 

Quite different has it been with the measure under present considera- 
tion, in all the past. But happily there has been a steadj^ increase in 
the proportion of cultured men in Congress, and it can not be doubted 
that to-day there is sufficient understanding of American deficiencies in 
the very highest field of education (wholly beyond the test of the col- 
leges), and in the most thorough qualification of men for the public 
service, as well as sufficient pride of country, to insure immediate 
favorable action, if they should but for once take the time to look the 
ground carefully over. 

Nor is this the whole of the case, under the head of dekys. 

S. Rep. 945 2 



18 UNIVEESTTY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Adverse forcejf have been at work, espeeiallv in recent years. They 
are for the most part personal, local, and denominational ambitions — 
ambitions without a scintilla of patriotic fire in them, set over against 
a measure which looks soleh" to the completement of the American 
system of public education, with absolute freedom from partisan bias 
of ever}^ name and nature, to more effective means of insuring the 
best possible administration of the Government in all its departments, 
and to an acknowledged leadership for our country in the advancement 
of knowledge and in all things requisite to the highest civilization. 

Since their overthrow in discussion before the Senate committee, in 
the said committee's reports, in magazine papers, and the newspaper 
press generally — say within the last hve years — there has been greater 
activity among the enemies of the university measure than ever before 
in forcing upon the uninquiring public the stale objections of other 
days, as stated and answered by the chairman of the national uni- 
versity committee; these, for example: 

1. First of all, it is said, there is really no need of better facilities for university 
education than the country now has — no need of the proposed post-graduate uni- 
versity. 

And this not-\A'ithstanding tlie emphatic utterances by a long line of our foremost 
educators, beginning with President Hill, of Harvard, who again and again, and 
more earnestly than ever of late, have declared "a true university" to be the "lead- 
ing want of American education;" this notwithstanding the annual exodus of 
between 3,000 and 5,000 of our college graduates for stud}' and research in the greater 
and better-equipped universities of the Old World; this notwithstanding our recent 
special appeal to the University of Paris; this notwithstanding the present desperate 
struggle of every one of even our foremost institutions to meet the demand for better 
opportunities for post-graduate work at home; this notwithstanding the earnest 
desire of those heads of considerably more than 100 colleges and universities (includ- 
ing such as are foremost in the entire country) which lead in this work, that the Gov- 
ernment of the United States should come to the rescue by the establishment of a 
university which in the early future shall be more amply endowed and better cir- 
cumstanced than any we now have can reasonably hope to become. 

How narrow must be the range of such an objector. Because his own or a neigh- 
boring institution seems to him large and prosperous, though meeting simply the 
collegiate demands of those who are its students, and looking hopefully to the time 
when it may become in the true sense a university, he excludes that whole series of 
important functions and relationships that would attach to and characterize the pro- 
posed national university at the seat of Government as they could not possibly attach 
to any other in the United States. I mean not alone those supplementary, coordi- 
nating, and stimulating influezices upon all the other educational agencies, to which 
reference has already been made, but rather those offices which it alone could fulfill 
in its relation to the people and to the Government itself. 

Established by the people and for the people, managed by men of first eminence 
and chosen from all divisions of the country without distinction of party or creed, 
conducted interiorly by men illustrious for their attainments and achievements in 
their several departments of learning, and attended by college graduates of superior 
gifts and aspirations from every portion of the country, the National University 
would command the attention of the whole people as no other institution could, giv- 
ing to them new conceptions of the extent of human knowledge, actual and possible, 



ONIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 19 

with a consequent increase in their appreciation of the whole series of schools, which, 
as so many steps, lead up to the highest, and thus arousing in them a new and 
increasing interest in the great cause of American education, and in the honor of the 
nation. 

2. It is also said that the trend of educational thought is against such a proposition 
as ours; that the French, German, and Austrian governments are multiplying their 
universities instead of spending their strength upon one. 

"Such objectors see not with the illustrious astronomer, Gould, that educational 
centralization is eminently distinguished from political centralization, and by this 
peculiarity, among others, that far from being a combination for the sake of aug- 
menting and exercising a greater collective power, it acts, on the contrary, to aug- 
ment individual influence. While forming a nucleus for scientific, literary, artistic 
energy, it is not a gravitation center toward which everything must converge and 
accumulate, but is an organic center whose highest function is to arouse and animate 
the circulation of thought and mental effort and profound knowledge. It is a nucleus 
of vitality rather than a nucleus of aggregation. * * * An intellectual center for 
a land is a heart, but subject to no induration; it is a brain, but liable to no paraly- 
sis; an electric battery which can not be consumed; it is a sun without eclipse, a 
fountain that will know no drought. To such a university our colleges would look 
for succor in their need, for counsel in their doubt, for sympathy in their weal or 
woe. There is no one of them but would develop to new strength and beauty under 
its genial emanations; none so highly favored or so great that its resources and pow- 
ers would not expand; none too lowly to imbibe the vitalizing, animating influences 
which it would diffuse like perfume." 

3. One of the objectors has even ventured to assei-t that, while it may have been 
well for the Government to do something for elementary education, higher education 
on the other hand is rather a luxury and may be left to take care of itself— the very 
thing it can not do, because of the large smns requisite for the costly manning and 
equipping of great institutions, and which, if wholly left to private benefactions, 
are ever liable to be ruinously mortgaged to some crudity of the endower or to some 
tenet of religious faith. 

For answer to this point, without stopping to show^ how, in education, the lower 
depends on the higher, I have been content to quote the words of two of America's 
foremost educators, namely, those of Hon. Andrew D. White, former president and 
uphuilder of Cornell University, and of that most illustrious apostle of popular edu- 
cation, Horace Mann. 

It was President White who, in discussing this very national university proposi- 
tion, said: "And, finally, I insist that it is a duty of society itself— a duty which it 
can not throw off— to see that the stock of talent and genius in each generation has 
a chance for development, that it may be added to the world's stock and aid in the 
world's work. Now, it is just this talent and genius which, as all history shows, 
private capacity and the law of supply and demand will not develop." 

And it was Horace Mann who boldly declared, "No man in our country and in our 
times is worthy the name of statesman who does not include the highest practicable 
education of the people in all his plans of administration." 

4. Again, it is urged that if it must be conceded that better and the very best 
graduate facilities are still needed, nevertheless that one should not be established 
by the National Government for a number of reasons, to wit: 

In the first place, says the objector, "it could hardly be kept out of politics;" 
quite forgetting how entirely our great military and naval academies have escaped 
this danger; how perfectly free from political interference has been our own noble 
Smithsonian Institution "from first to last; how the great State universities have 
developed and flourished under the fostering care of legislative bodies far more liable 
than the Congress of the United States to be influenced in such matters by party 



20 UNIVEESITT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

considerations; forgetting, too, that educational and scientific work is less interfered 
with by both legislative bodies and the pubhc in proportion as it passes into the - 
higher fields, and that the pending bill duly limited the Government. 

5. Still more serious than any of these is said to be the embarrassment tb.at might 
come to the existing colleges and universities to be overshadowed, minified, stripped 
of their professors and students and reduced to nothingness by the competing central 
institution. 

How strangely such objectors ignore about all the elements involved in the rela- 
tionship to be established. They seem not to understand that, first gf all, the Uni- 
versity of the United States is to be exclusively graduate; which fact of itself relieves 
the more than 400 of our collegiate institutions of every possible ground of anxiety, 
and should open to their view (as it does with the majority) the incalculable bene- 
fits that would come to them in the consequent correlation of all the higher institu- 
tions, in the unification of their work, in the elevation of standards, in the better 
supply of better-fitted men for their many faculties, in the stimulation the national 
university would give to their thousands of ambitious students by the opportunities, 
honors, and distinctions held aloft to them in the face of the whole world. 

As for the newer institutions established within the recent years, but few of them 
have so much as a well-founded hope of doing a very large amount of the work of a 
university in the bigher sense, which consists in original investigations by great 
leaders in many fields of inquiry, and in the induction of gifted minds into the 
methods of those researches by means of which the boundaries of knowledge are 
enlarged and mankind is advanced in material and spiritual power. They are mixed 
institutions, all of them; seeking to do, first of all, the proper work of the college; 
second, to supplement this as far as limited means and forces will allow hy advance 
work in the lecture room for such as have already received the bachelor's degree, 
and third, to attempt such work in the laboratory as may seem in a manner to justify 
the university title. [An objection, moreover, made futile by that provision of this 
bill which demands higher attainments than those represented by the degree of 
A. B.,a condition of admission to the greater field of general studies beyond.] 

It is needless to add that, while many such institutions have done and are doing 
the work of the college very well— unless it be that they attach too much importance 
to the learning of many things and too little to that discipline which gives added 
power — the "university work" attempted is for the most part done very scatteringiy, 
at great disadvantage, and, of course, with verj^ partial results. 

The talk of ruinous "competition" is groundless, therefore. Most of the existing 
institutions would be without the shadow of a claim to sympathy on this ground. 
Such few as have begun graduate work are divided on the question; the older and 
less progressive taking needless alarm, while the newer ones, though doing a much 
larger proportion of advanced work, with high courage and a better understanding 
of what the national university would be, are cordial supporters of the new move- 
ment, as will appear from the "Godspeed" they have so often wished the national 
committee of promotion. They know, first of all, that even if some of their graduate 
work should also be undertaken by the central institution, there are many things 
worse than an honorable competition — that, as ' ' competition in business is the life 
of trade," so in the higher fields of original scientific work it often leads to individual 
triumphs and to scientific progress for the world. 

These last also know that a central and national institution, interested above all in the 
welfare of important university agencies, would gladly find ways for a practical reali- 
zation of all that is so wisely provided for in the pending bill, which reads as follows: 
"The university shall have authority to establish with other institutions of edu- 
cation and learning in the United States such cooperative relations as shall be deemed 
advanta,geous to the i^ublic interest." 



UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 21 

A real university, manned and equipped for this higher work only, would not 
merely supply this growing demand of our country and age by relieving a multitude 
of our collegiate institutions of the seeming necessity to keep pace with ambitious 
and better endowed competitors by attempting impossible things; it would enable 
them to concentrate their means and forces upon their proper work, and thus con- 
tribute to that thorough scholarship of which, with all our schools, colleges, and 
so-called universities, there is too little in this country anywhere. 

If any one of these were vastly better endowed, officered, and furnished it would 
still be unable to exert that coordinating, correlating, stimulating, and uplifting 
force so greatly needed and so sure to be exercised by a post-graduate university of 
the highest type, established at Washington and bearing the stamp of the nation. 
Denominational ambitions, local jealousies, and State rivalries would prove insur- 
mountable to even the best of them and there woidd still be a demand for the Uni- 
versity of the United States. 

The fear of embarrassment to existing institutions is therefore wholly groundless. 
The planting of the proposed institution would doubtless have the effect to satisfy 
some of the so-called universities that they are still far from the mark of their high 
calling. And that would be 'an excellent service. The majority, seeing the present 
impossibility of becoming more than merely nominal universities, would wisely limit 
themselves to the solid and more useful work of the college, as before intimated, thus 
perfecting the scholarship of those whom they are to qualify for the business of life or 
for entrance upon the work of the university itself. And such of the institutions as are 
really able to do something valuable in the way of research and of leading graduates 
of genius into the highest fields of effort would naturally limit themselves to fewer 
subjects, thus increasing the probability of an abler handling of them, and drawing 
into their work such students as for various reasons would find it for their interest 
to utilize the facilities near home, instead of coming to Washington. Moreover, 
while this work of readjustment is going on the central institution will be gathering 
in those ambitious graduates of many colleges and universities who would otherwise 
have entered directly into their chosen life pursuits; giving to them opportunities for 
advanced learning in the various departments, training them for those investigations 
by means of which the knowledge of mankind is increased, and thus fitting for the 
highest service in the colleges and universities in the several States a score of men 
of supreme qualifications for every professor drawn to the national center. 

6. Another and very strange objection concerns the relation of education totheRepub- 
lic. It has an antiquated look and provokes a query concerning the means of its foster- 
ing and survival to this day. It is said, and said as if settling the whole business, that it 
is no proper function of the Government to care for the interests of education; that 
education is not essential to the security of the Republic; that if it can not be had 
without the help of the Government it is better that it should not be had at all; 
that this helping of the people to the means of education is even dangerous to our 
institutions; nay, that it "saps the foundations of public liberty;" — as if the Govern- 
ment of the United States were an independent personality having powers absolutely 
and wholly its own, capable of giving to the people a force and substance they do 
not in and of themselves possess, and thus invading their independence and weaken- 
ing their self-reliance; as if the Government were not in fact a body of servants 
appointed to do the people's work within prescribed limits, the people themselves 
being the masters, decreeing and doing through and by their servants whatever is 
done, and hence being in no sense separable, either in fact or in thought, from the 
Government itself. 

Touching this whole subject of a just relationship between Govern- 
ment and the higher education, we can not do better than to quote 
from an address b}^ Dr. William T. Harris, present United States 



22 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Commissioner of Education, before the National Educational Associa- 
tion, at Detroit, in 1874: 

But the most obvious and often repeated objection to the proposed national uni- 
versity is drawn from the nature of our national politics. It is contended that we 
have a certain low standard of politics, and that whatever is directed, managed, and 
supported bj^ the State suffers inevitably from political influence. A university 
founded under the management of our National Government would be the prey of 
demagogues, it is thought. This view is developed and supported chiefly by those 
who hold the theory that our Government should exclude from its functions an 
interference with education or with other functions within the range of civil society. 
Civil society and the state are only different phases of the same organic human com- 
bination; in the former, in civil society, the individual uses the organization for his 
own sustenance and support, and the furtherance of his private ends through the 
agency of wealth; in the latter, the state, the organization, exists in its unity, and 
subordinates all individuals to its end. 

The state must exist as the logical condition of the existence of civil society and 
the welfare or rational existence of the individual. Unless the individual devotes 
his life and property to the state and acknowledges the supreme right to use him 
and his he does not properly recognize his position. But it exists whether con- 
sciously recognized or not by the citizen or statesman. Now, from the reciprocal 
relations of the functions of the state and civil society as related to the individual, 
it follows that the state as a directive power of the organism as a whole must legis- 
late regarding all such phases as relate to its own self-preservation and perpetuation. 
No other people ever before started such a theory as the one which asserts or pre- 
supposes in some form the denial of an organic relation of state and society. So 
long as we undertake to realize this theory we shall act a farce between ourselves 
and the intelligence of mankind. We shall do practically in spite of ourselves what 
we condemn in theory. 

By a common movement the foremost nations of Europe have advanced to the 
position that public education is a concern that ^ itally interests the state. No state 
can allow its productive industry to fall behind that of other nations. Independence 
can not be long preserved on such terms. Directly, as necessary to the war material, 
and indirectly as essential to productive industry, the education of the w^hole people 
is indispensable, and the Government can not afford to leave it to arbitrary private 
benevolence or to the zeal of the church. 

The great desideratum in this country is to kindle still more the zeal of our legis- 
lators on behalf of public education. To attempt to cool their zeal is to w'ork a mis- 
chief. It behooves our Government to see to it that education is national and not 
sectional or sectarian, or a matter of caste. On no other nation is this injunction 
laid so heavily. The foundations of our Government rest on popular education. 
Other nations have always seen to it that their directive intelligence was educated 
at the expense of the state. They even go further in our time, and educate their 
sinews of war and the quality of their productive industry. We, in America, are 
connnitted to universal public education implicitly by the Constitution of our Gov- 
ernment, which is a Government of the people by the people. Not only must the 
citizen here be able to read and interpret the laws of the land for himself, but he is 
expected to possess and exercise the requisite intelligence to make the laws which 
he is to obey. All the evils which we suffer politically may be traced to the exist- 
ence in our midst of an immense mass of ignorant, illiterate, or semi-educated people 
who assist in governing the country, while they possess no insight into the true 
nature of the issues which they attempt to decide. If in Europe, and even in China, 
the directive classes are educated at public expense, how essential is it that the 
republican state shall, before all, insure universal education within its domain. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STA.TES. 23 

Such also are the views of the chairman of the national university 
committee, who says: 

The accepted doctrine of to-day is certainly this: That the Government is of the 
nature of an agency estabhshed by the people for their convenience, and for their 
permanent as well as present advantage— that the Constitution is a binding agree- 
ment of the people as to the purpose and organization of this agency and the char- 
acter of the agents to be employed, the manner of their choosing, and the scope of 
the duties they are to perform. And who will say that the people, acting through 
this agency, are not both competent and in duty bound, in constitutional ways, to 
avail themselves of their own means to their own highest good? 

Such was the theory of the founders of the Government and framers of the Con- 
stitution; such the view of Washington, who repeatedly, and especially in his last 
annual message to Congress, pointed out several ways in which a national university, 
established by the Government, would prove a bulwark of free institutions; such the 
theory on which the Federal Government not only established those noble training 
schools for the Army and Navy at West Point and Annapolis, but has also made such 
provision for elementary and secondary education as has resulted in the public school 
system pecuUar to this country; such the theory on which Government provision 
was early made for the partial endowment of universities in a number of the great 
States of more recent organization; such the theory on which, by the act of 1862, 
provision was made for the esta1:)lishment of- those schools of agriculture and the 
mechanic arts which have furnished to thousands of needy students scientific oppor- 
tunities otherwise impossible, and which have so materially advanced the practical 
arts, while adding to the resources, attractive powers, and general usefulness of the 
institutions in connection with which the most of them were established; such the 
theory on which Congress provided for the so-called experimental stations, with a 
view to the advancement of the art of husbandry— things done, every one of them, 
by the people through their agents, and in the joint interest of community. State, 
and Nation. 

Is not this also the theory on whit'li the Government has taken part in our inter- 
national expositions, and has inaugurated surveys and explorations for discovery in 
the interest of science and for increasing the honor of the American name? Is not 
this the theory on which, at a cost of so many millions, have been established and are 
liberally maintained at this national center that grand cluster of half a hundred 
educational, scientific, and industrial bureaus, museums, observatories, laboratories, 
libraries, and the like, which are contributing so greatly to the dignity, honor, and 
general welfare of the nation? Is not this the theory, after all, on which was but 
recently created and equipped a new great department of the Government, the 
Department of Agriculture? 

In view of all these facts and of that vast array of facts and considerations so easily 
marshalled, how misconceived and groundless seem all the objections that were ever 
urged against the one final step, greatest of all, which looks to the more effective 
service of those important agencies, as well as to their larger utilization in the interest 
of education— in short, to the earlier opening up, better husl^anding, wiser direc- 
tion, and perpetual development of the resources, both material and intellectual, of 
a great nation, so magnificently planted and so wonderfully endowed ! That such 
final step will be taken, and with a liberality commensurate with the great end to be 
accomplished, there is no longer room for question. The Government can not now 
repudiate or reverse its beneficent and far-reaching policy in the interest of science 
and learning. 

The American people, having early realized the vital necessity for a general enlight- 
enment of the masses, were not slow in coming to understand how the vastness and 
variety of our resources and the rapid progress of other nations were making both 



24 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

great and growing demands upon the industries of the country, which they were 
powerless to meet without the help of science; nor can it be doubted that they have 
now also come to a realization of how truly the conspicuous place we hold among 
the nations and the nature of our Government, as well as the genius and aspirations 
of our people, imperatively demand the best possible facilities for that high culture 
and that work of research which are essential to intellectiial supremacy, and hence 
are reasons deep and urgent for the earliest possible establishment of the crowning 
university of the United States. 

ECCLESIASTICAL OPPOSITION. 

It appears from the Kyle report of 1896 that at the hearings of that 
year before the Senate Committee earnest opposition was made hj the 
Chancellor, of the so-called "American Universit}^''' and some of his 
coadjutors, which opposition the chairman of the national university 
committee dealt with as follows: 

The chief opposer's first argument was to this effect, namely: There can be no uni- 
versity without a school of theology. A national university, which must be impar- 
tial, could not teach theology without teaching all the religious faiths, which would 
be impossible. Therefore, it could never become a university — an institution embrac- 
ing the whole circle of the sciences, arts, and letters. 

It seems not to have occurred to this reverend advocate that so much of theology 
as is dearest to him is a matter of belief only, and hence not of science at all; or 
that if some religious belief must be taught in order to constitute a university, the 
institution which he i^roposes as a substitute for the national university would find 
itself about as badly off, since in the estimation of all the other 142 religious denom- 
inations in the United States the educational organization which he represents 
would be but the one hundred and forty-third part of a university, according to his 
own theory. 

On the other hand our ecclesiastical opposer does not seem to have had in mind 
that the greater part of what is taught in a theological course may be as properly 
te-ught in the national university as in his own; nor that we are now neither in for- 
eign lands nor in the dark ages, Avhere and when theology led the way, but in the 
midst of very different conditions, and living under a Government which left the 
church responsible for its own affairs. Possibly it has not occurred to him that, 
with the University of the United States at the national capital, there will still be 
room for as many purely theological schools as the 143 denominations are likely to 
find the means to set up; each of them sustaining friendly relations with the great 
central university and drawing freely from its fountains of pure learning. Nor, last of 
all, does it seem to have entered the bishop's mind that, with the rapid enlargement 
of the vast field of human knowledge which the whole world accepts, there has 
gradually come a new conception of things, and such revision of terms that the mere 
beliefs of the multitudinous sects are no longer of necessity constituent parts of a true 
university. 

2. This same objector inquires, "How could you teach political economy in a 
national university? ' ' 

What a question! In the first place, what better means of teaching political 
economy would his own denominational university possess? Would it teach one or 
both sides of the party questions? If but one side, then he is his own accuser; and 
if both or all sides, why could not the national university do the same? Does he" 
seriously doubt that the national university would have all the conflicting econo- 
mies taught, and by representative men of such acknowledged competency as would 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 25 

satisfy all demands? Political economy is taught in the undergi-aduate courses of 
all our higher institutions, so that graduates would come to the national university 
already familiar with the general principles, though ofttimes with a bias, one way 
or the other, because of the narrowness and unfairness of a professor who could not 
honorably state the whole argument, pro and con. At the national university they 
would hear both or all sides and thus be competent to reach a just conclusion. This 
objection, like the other, does little credit to the information of the opposer, who 
ought to know what is already done in this regard at leading institutions, American 
and foreign. 

Touching this whole matter the pending bill distinctlj^ provides that "in all the 
operations of the universitj^ neither sectarian nor partisan preferences shall be 
allowed." Does our objector's charter guarantee as much? Does he not practically 
admit that his own proposed institution is to be one-sided? 

The other objections, concerning modern history, etc., are not deserving of confu- 
tation. 

3. Next it was urged that the nondenominational universities are not extraordinary 
successes, and in terms which made it very apparent that the reverend objector is 
not in sympathy with the public-school system of the country, of which so many of 
said universities constitute a part, and that he would have the American people go 
back to the good old times when the ambitious lover of learning must choose his 
creed and pay, or starve. He also forgets all the great schools of the East. 

The assertions as to this matter are not sustained bj^ the facts. Many of the State 
institutions are so new that it is unfair to compare them with those whose l^eginnings 
go back one or two hundred years. But, regardless of this point, it is beyond question 
that several of these State and other nondenominational universities are at this very 
hour leading the ancients in most important matters, while yet others are rapidly 
moving to the front. The statement that the present tendency is rather toward 
denominational control is not true. Nor is the specific statement concerning Cornell 
University, to the effect that it had been necessary to change its charter, giving to 
the evangelical, churches a majority control, correct. It is flatly denied in every 
particular by ex-president Andrew D. White, who drafted the charter and has been 
familiar with the institution from its very foundation. 

As a matter of fact, everything like intensity of denominationalism is on the wane 
among the greater institutions. Men everywhere are broadened and lil^eralized by 
the higher studies. To effect this very thing is one great office of the higher education. 

The friends of the coming national university have nothing to say against the 
denominational institutions. Not a few of them bravely, and with sacrifices to be 
ever gratefully remembered, met as they could the intellectual cravings of our youth 
in the times ere there came any just recognition of the obligations resting upon the 
State and National Governments to create and perfect a series of public schools 
from lowest to the highest possible — a series that should be worthy the high title of 
American system of public education- — and to throw around that system every pos- 
sible safeguard, as though it were the very cradle of liberty. Let the denominational 
schools flourish. They meet a demand that will continue. We lay not one straw in 
their way. Nay, as said before, by the founding of the national university there 
will be secured to them, as to all our educational institutions, a needed service such 
as no other instrumentality could offer. 

As touching the claims of this denominational opposer, we simply urge that, since 
only a portion of the 70,000,000 of Americans are of his particular faith, it is illiberal, 
unpatriotic, and absurd for him, as the self-appointed champion of an incipient sec- 
tarian institution, intended, as shown by its charter, for but a new universitj' of the 
ordinary type, to claim the whole remaining ground, to the total exclusion of sutji 
an one as George Washington and other founders of the Government originated and 
outlined; as eight other pr^idents of the United States have favored; as so many of 



26 LTNIVEESTTY OF THE UTSriTED STATES. 

our most eminent citizens have at various periods most earnesth" advocated; as chiefs 
of the great body of the higher institutions have strongly recommended and are now 
recommending; as is warmly urged by State superintendents of public instruction in 
every State of the Union; as is heartily approved by leading scholars, scientists, and 
statesmen of the whole country. 

AVe further say to this ecclesiastical objector that the national university is not 
intended for undergraduate youth at all, but for graduate students who shall have 
already passed through the courses of moral training supplied by the religious agen- 
cies of the country, and are prepared in their manlier years to enter upon those 
studies which lead into special fields of intellectual activity. 

4. Last of all, this distinguished champion of a denominational institution, under 
an "American" name, made an end to his series of misconceptions and misrepresenta- 
tions with an attempt to weaken the patriotic sentiment which rightfullj^ attaches 
to the national university proposition, by saying of WashingtoUj "He spoke only of 
an institution for instruction in political science. He did not mean such a univer- 
sity as is set forth in this bill; not at all." 

To show how strangely this bold declaration l)efore the Senate committee misrep- 
resents the facts in the case, I have but to quote from Washington's letters, as follows: 

(1) From his letter of December 15, 1794, to Edmond Randolph, Secretary of State: 
' ' For the reasons mentioned to you the other day, namely, the Virginia assembly 

being in session, and a plan being on foot for establishing a seminary of learning 
upon an extensive scale in the Federal city, it would oblige me if you and Mr. Madi- 
son would endeavor to mature the measures Avhich will be proper for me to pui'sue in 
order to bring my designs into view as soon as you can make it convenient to your- 
selves." 

(2) From his letter of March 15, 1795, to Thomas Jefferson: 

"And, lastly, as the seminary is contemplated for the completion of education and 
study of the sciences, not for boys in their rudiments, it will afford the students an 
opportunity of attending the debates in Congress, and thereby becoming more lib- 
erally and better acquainted with the principles of law and government." 

(3) From his letter of March 16, 1795, to Governor Brooke, of Virginia: 
"Presuming it to be more agreeable to the general assembly of Virginia that the 

shares in the James River Company should be assessed for a similar object in some 
part of that State, I intend to allot them for a seminary to be erected at such place as 
they shall deem most proper. I am disposed to believe that a seminary of learning 
upon an enlarged plan, Ijut yet not coming up to the full idea of a university, is an 
institution to be preferred for the position which is to be chosen. The students who 
wish to pursue the whole range of science may pass with advantage from the seminary 
to the university, and the former, by a due relation, may be rendered cooperative with 
the latter." 

(4) From his letter of September 1, 1796, to Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the 
Treasury : 

"1 mean education generally, as one of the surest means of enlightening; and giving 
just views of thinking to our citizens, but particularly the establishment of a uni- 
versity, where the youth of all parts of the United States might receive the i:)olish of 
erudition in the arts, sciences, and belles-lettres, and where those who v/ere disposed 
to run a political course might not only be instructed in the theory and principles, 
but (this seminary being at the seat of the General Government where the Legisla- 
ture would be in session half the year, and the interests and politics of the nation 
would be discussed) would lay the surest foundation for the practical part also." 

(5) From his annual message of December 7, 1796: 

■ "The assembly to which I address myself is too enlightened not to be fully sensi- 
ble how much a flourishing state of the arts and sciences contributes to material 
prosperity and reputation. True it is that our country, ,much to its honor, contains 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 27 

many seminaries of learning highly respectable and useful; but the funds upon 
which they rest are too narrow to command the ablest professors, in the different 
departments of liberal knowledge, for the institution contemplated, though they 
would be excellent auxiliaries." 

It is everywhere manifest in Washington's correspondence and conversations on 
this subject that his far-reaching mind and patriotic heart were full of a demand for 
exactly the kind of an institution which, in honor of his name, for the. cause of learn- 
ing, and for the sacred cause of country, not only we at this distance in time have 
planned, but which such patriots as Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of 
Independence, and a leading scientist of his time, had in mind when, in his appeals 
to the country in support of the national-university proposition, in 1788, he said: 

"To effect this great and necessary work let one of the first acts of the new Con- 
gress be to establish within the district to be allotted for them a Federal university, 
into which the youth of the United States shall be received after they have finished 
their studies and taken degrees in the colleges of their respective States." 

5. The vice-chancellor of the new denominational university was hardly more 
fortunate than his predecessor in the discussion. 

Passing without comment 'his reference to the "question of constitutional right," 
brief notice may be taken of his question of " the moral right to take the money of 
the many and spend it for the superior educational advantage of the few." 

Strange questions these from such a representative ! Yes, it is the moral right — 
and the moral as well as the patriotic duty — of the Government of this Republic to 
do whatsoever is necessary to the highest possible culture, on American soil and in 
friendly intercourse from every section, of those to whom in large part are to be 
committed the destinies of our country; the security of our free institutions; the 
national development in every field of worthy enterprise; our dignity as a nation, 
honorably and liberally providing for its own; our proper place in the very front 
rank of an advancing civilization. 

Some 3,000 to 5,000 American graduates are to-day seeking abroad the post- 
graduate facilities which they can not find at home; and, secretly, some of those 
who oppose this university movement are pleading for yet other favors of that sort 
in the universities of France. 

Presidents Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Qcincy 
Adams, Jackson, Grant, and Hayes were moved by an honorable craving to be free 
from dependence on foreign powers in all these high regards, and hence officially 
favored the founding of a national university. The claim by them made is still 
urged, and with increasing earnestness by a multitude of the foremost of American 
citizens. 

But for reasons not far to seek this talk of the constitutional and moral right to 
do a similar thing to that which has been done for the whole series of public schools, 
from the primary school to the State university, would be incomprehensible. It is 
only matched by that in which, with the Senate university bill in his hand, this sec- 
ond reverend objector declared that "the institution proposed by this bill will not 
really supplement the other schools of the country, and does not propose to do any- 
thing beyond college work." 

6. And then this same vice-chancellor, in the next moment, expresses anxiety 
about the secular trend of the State and independent institutions, and so is hoping 
to supply the demand for truth and righteousness by building up an intensely sec- 
tarian institution, to the preclusion and everlasting exclusion of a truly national one. 
Does he assume that a State or national university must of necessity be Godless 
unless it be under denominational control? Is not this a Christian nation in a 
broader sense than is represented by any denominationalism? And does not a spirit 
of reverence, that fundan:iental element of religion, almost of necessity prevail wher- 
ever there is an earnest seeking after truth? 



28 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

7. Finally, the vice-chancellor, in his sympathy for other institutions, including 
especially those which his chief had disparaged, was moved to urge that a strong 
national university would embarrass the universities in the States. 

Why, then, do the managers of such institutions want it? Because they clearly 
see that by establishing such a post-graduate institution at the capital the Govern- 
ment will give a new dignity and value to the higher learning everywhere, and thus 
insure to the other institutions of the country a larger patronage and a more enthusi- 
astic support— that it will help, and not hinder, as said before; and not alone by 
the increased interest in higher learning which it will surely awaken everywhere, 
but also by its new and unfailing supply of men of highest attainments, for instruc- 
tion in their several departments. 

8. The rather presumptuous and elaborate attempt of the zealous trustee, put for- 
ward by the opposing denominational party to weaken the confidence of the Senate 
committee in the constitutional powers of the Government as to this matter, might 
well remain unnoticed (since the arguments offered have been passed upon so many 
times by the ablest of jurists) but for his statement of certain facts in the records 
of the Federal Convention in a form and manner quite evidently intended to make 
it appear that the omission to adopt the proposition of Messrs. Charles Pinckney and 
James Madison to include in the Constitution the power to establish and provide 
for a national university was on account of opposition to the thing itself sought to 
be made secure. On the contrary, it is clearly manifest, from the only accounts we 
have, that said omission was solely because of the prevailing opinion (1) that 
nothing not absolutely necessary should be put into the Constitution and (2) that 
an express provision therein for the projjosed university was unnecessary, since "the 
exclusive power at the seat of government would reach that object." 

The record goes further and shows that, notwithstanding this prevailing opinion, 
five of the twelve delegates who had part in deciding the question voted to include 
the provision as a means of making the university more sure. It noM'here appears 
that a solitary word was uttered against the desirability of the proposed university. 

9. The novel features of the trustee's discussion were the anti-Catholic argument 
and his plea for sympathy in behalf of the yet infant denominational institution in 
the other quarter of the District. 

To the first it is sufficient to say that it is not the business of the Government of the 
United States to have anything to do with the antagonisms or ambitions of religious 
organizations. It was divorced from the church when it was founded, and must 
leave this whole matter to those directly concerned. 

In answer to the second I merely call attention to the facts that the efforts for a 
national university began more than one hundred years before his OAvn institution 
was thought of; also, that the recent renewal of such efforts by the introduction of 
Senator Edmund's bill and the formation of the Senate's Select Committee to Estab- 
lish the University of the United States, on May 14, 1890, considerably antedated the 
charter from the District Commissioners of his institution on May 28, 1891. If these 
objectors really wanted an American university, why did they not join hands with 
Senator Edmunds and other able friends of such an institution? There was not 
difference enough between "American," "National," and "United States" to con- 
stitute a bar to any high purpose in so important a matter. 

Perhaps I should not disturb the happy dreams wherein a great sectarian school 
was so easily forming itself with the help of a taking misnomer or einbarrass well- 
devised schemes for a raising of funds on the strength of rosy views of an "Ameri- 
can " institution that would more than realize the aspirations of Washington while 
under a two-thirds majority control of a single religious sect, nor is it pleasant to 
interfere with any man's schemes for large fortunes out of lands on the other side 
of the Potomac, but I will confess to no little surprise at such a showing as these 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 29 

men have made, as if it were argument and a tit illustration of superior ethics in 
education ! 

Since the great Catholic Church wants a high university of its own, is frank enough 
to christen it "The Catholic University of America," and is strong enough in both 
means and purpose to build it, let it do so. Its right can not be challenged. And, 
in hke manner, if any denomination with a contrary faith is ambitious to match this 
undertaking by l^uilding up a great institution of its own, it is equally its right, and 
they who plan and name it will do well to be as frank and courageous as the vigorous 
supporters of a more ancient faith; but for the nation there is demanded a national 
university, wholly free from either sectarian or partisan bias, and for faithful service 
in the interest of science and learning, of the nation itself, of freedom, and of the 
highest good of mankind. 

There has also been active opposition from a vei\y few of the great 
and nonsectarian universities — all of them at the northeast and priding 
themselves quite as much on age as on real v^^orth. The most of their 
students hav^e alwa3\'^ been mere college lio^'s, and many of their 
graditates hasten to finish their studies abroad. The noble Universit}^ 
of Virginia and all the moi'e important institutions of the South and 
West have always been staunch supporters of the National University 
measure. 

The opposition of the four older institutions is well understood. 
For more than a century they have all struggled to gain and to hold a 
foremost place in the university ranks, and have accomplished so much 
that neither they nor their friends find it easy to yield any point that 
ma}" look to the establishment of an institution which, because of its 
centrality, its supreme standards, its national functions and its inter- 
national relations, would, in the nature of the case, secure to it a fore- 
most place among the universities of the world. They simply mis- 
understand the situation, and it has not been possible for the present 
leaders in these universities to see how truly the University of the 
United States, when duly established, would become a mighty force 
for their advancement, confining its general work to fields beyond those 
of the other universities, and for the most part limiting itself to special 
fields and those of research and investigation. 

As for the "American University,'"' its own friends in large num- 
bers, including some bishops and a dozen or so of the better of the 
Methodist colleges and universities, of w^hich it was expected to be 
chief, have been so far displeased with the adoption of a misleading- 
title, with a plan less than equal to that of a university, and with the 
extraordinary character of its opposition to the national university 
measure, that they have turned their backs upon that enterprise and 
allied themselves with the greater cause. 

The movement of what for a brief space was called the "Washing- 
ton Memorial Institution " is said to remain even yet a mystery with 
many who were supposed to understand it. But a careful inquiry 
shows that the purpose behind it all was to head ofi' and finally defeat 



30 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

r 

the national universit}- enterprise, as planned by its friends, and to 
make the institution, when established, very different— anything but a 
supreme and complete University of the United States, True, there 
were in this sinister movement a few persons who were members of 
the national university committee, and who had given to the chairman 
of that committee cordial letters indorsing its enterprise, but, with 
few exceptions, they were unaware of the design and nature of the 
Washington Memorial Institution, and, taken together, were strangely 
led and dominated by the old-time enemies of the national imiversity 
measure. It appears to the carefully observing friends of the univer- 
sit}' measure that this association was adopted, if not devised, by the 
''committee of fifteen" of the national council of the National Edu- 
cational Association, and was thought by its planners very sure of the 
whole countrj^'s approval. Nevertheless, its fate was sealed four times 
within the same six months. First, by the. overwhelming negative 
vote by which the report of the committee of fifteen was rejected, 
receiving as it did only three votes out of twenty-seven. It has been 
said that even the chairman of the committee did not vote for it. 
How could he, after writing to the chairman of the national universit}^ 
committee the following letters and others like them : 

The University of Chicago, 

Chicago, Septemher 6, 1892. 
My Deae Sir: In reply to your favor of the 2cl instant I assure you that you may 
count me as one of the friends of the movement in behalf of the national university. 
I have always believed in such an institution, and will continue to believe in it. 
There is everything to be gained and nothing to be lost. I have read with much 
interest the summary and contents of your proposed report. I shall read the same 
with great interest. 

I remain yours, very truly, Wm. R. Harper, 

President. 



The University of Chicago, 

Chicago, January 4, 1895. 

My Dear Sir: Please accept my thanks for your favor of December 20. I rejoice 

with you in the onward movement of the proposition to establish the University of 

the United States. I sincerely hope that an early action of Congress on this bill may 

be secured. Whatever I can do to forward the movement will most gladly be done. 

I remain yours, very truly, 

Wm. R. Harper, President. 

Second, by the overwhelming vote in the general assembly of the 
National Educational Association, which, it is said, carried the follow- 
ing resolution, offered by President Jesse, of the University of Missouri, 
with a shout: 

Resolved, That this association does hereby reaffirm its former declaration in favor 
of the establishment by the General Government of a national university devoted, 
not to collegiate, but to true university work. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 31 

Third, by the unanimous passage of the following resolution by 
the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment 
Stations: 

Resolved, That the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment 
Stations record its appreciation of the action of the Government, through the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, which opened the facilities for research for advanced work at 
Washington in response to the request of this association; and further express its 
desire that these facilities be still further extended; and that it would welcome with 
satisfaction the development and organization of a national university devoted exclu- 
sively to advanced and graduate research. 

Fourth, by the rejection of the nondescript Washington Memorial 
Institution by Mr. Andrew Carnegie and the substitution of a scheme 
of his own now in process of evolution. 

True, in this last matter of the Carnegie institution and its liberal 
endowment of f.10,000,000 the friends of the national university 
movement were badly disappointed, for encouraging words had been 
given by Mr. Carnegie to the chairman of the national university 
committee. 

On the other hand, the national university committee were gratified 
to note that upon the announcement of Mr. Carnegie's gift for educa- 
tion in Washington the ne\Yspapers of the countr}^ almost without 
exception, understood and spoke of it as so much of an endowment 
for the proposed national university, thus showing what the public 
judgment has been and is. 

A yet more encouraging fact is found in the address of Mr. (yarnegie 
before his board of trustees on the 29th of January, 1902, wherein he 
uses these words: 

My first thought was to fulfill the expressed wish of Washington by establishing a 
university here, but a study of the question forced me to the conclusion that under 
pi'esent conditions, were Washington still with us, his finely balanced judgment would 
decide that in our generation, at least, such use of wealth would not be the best. 

One of the most serious objections, and one which I could not overcome, was that 
another university might tend to weaken existing universities. Mj- desire was to 
cooperate with all educational institutions, and establish what would be a source of 
strength and not of weakness to them, and the idea of a Washington university, or 
of anything of a memorial character, was therefore abandoned. 

It cost some effort to push aside the tempting idea of a Washington university, 
founded by Andrew^ Carnegie, which the president of the Woman's George Washing- 
ton Memorial Association was kind enough to suggest. That may be reserved for 
another in the future, for the realization of Washington's desire would perhaps jus- 
tify the linking of another name with his, but certainly nothing else would. 

This gift, or the donor, has no pretensions to such honor, and in no wise inter- 
feres with the proposed university or with any memorial. It has its own more 
modest field, and is intended to cooperate with all kindred institutions, including 
the Washington university, if ever built, and it may be built if we continue to increase 
in population as heretofore for a generation. In this hope I think the name should 
be sacredly held in reserve. It is not a matter of one million or ten millions, or even 
of twenty millions, but of more to fulfill worthily the wish of Washington, and I 



32 UJSTTVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

think no one will presume to use that almost sacred name except for a university of 
the very first rank, established by national authority, as he desired. Be it our part 
in our day and generation to do what we can to extend the boundaries of human 
knowledge by utilizing existing institutions. 

Encouragement is also found in a paper by Dr. Daniel C. Gilman. 
president of the Carneg-ie Institution, in Scienct for February 7, 1903, 
wherein he says: 

Nothing has been done in founding the new institution, the Carnegie -Institution, 
to further or to hinder the estal^lishment of a national university which has been so 
many times proposed to Congress. 

The Carnegie Institution is simply a new force for the promotion of science, ready 
to cooj^erate with other institutions which are now or may be established in Wash- 
ington or elsewhere. 

WHAT, THEN, IS THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE NATIONAL 
UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISE? 

The leaders of the movement speak with a zeal and confidence greater 
than ever. They say: 

"While much has been lost to the university cause for the reason 
that the Senate committee's chairman did not submit the report agreed 
upon during the Fifty-sixth Congress, and by the decease or absence 
of thos'e earnest champions, Senators George F. Edmunds, Eppa 
Hunton, James H. Kyle, John C. Mitchell, and William F. Vilas, 
ex-Senator and ex-Attorney-General A. H. Garland, Gardiner G. 
Hubbard, president of the National Geographic Society; William 
Pepper, ex-provost of the University of Pennsylvania; Ambassador 
Andrew D. White, now in Germany, and Ambassador Horace Porter, 
now in France, much, on the other hand, has been gained. 

"The national university advocates have drawn the enemj^'s fire, 
and now know who, what, and where he is; also, that his silence in 
1893 and 1894, when the Senate committee's unanimous reports were 
submitted b}" Senators Proctor, of Vermont, and Hunton, of Virginia, 
respectively, although too late for final action b}' the Senate, was due to 
his surprise and unreadiness ; that his first show of fight in 1896 was under 
constraint of the few old universities of theNortheast and to overzealons 
representatives of the Methodist Church; that the meager minority 
report of 1896, though f ashiohed and fortified by four of the ablest of 
opposing Senators, the presidents of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Penn- 
S3dvania,and five small colleges, was weak because in the nature of the 
case it was impossible to make it strong. 

'"The friends of the national university enterprise have seen the 
unfriendl}^ scheme of the Washington Memorial Institution, though 
reenforced b}' some members of the national university" committee in 
whom they had trusted, and favored by the George Washington 
Memorial Association to the extent of yielding to the Memorial Insti- 
tution its fund of some thousands, collected in aid of the national 



UNIVEESITY OF THE U:N'ITED STATES. 33 

university enterprise — they have seen this scheme of this association 
of ostensible friends and open enemies, thoug-h accepted by the com- 
mittee of fifteen of the national council of the National Educational 
Association, and offered as a practical substitute for the national uni- 
versit}^ die a death as sudden as it was deserved, at the hand of a single 
man otherwise disposed. 

"They have seen the National Educational Association, whose action 
mam' years ago, as alreadj^ stated, was four times unanimous, thor- 
oughlj^ aroused and in earnest again. 

' ' The}' have seen the Association of State University Presidents 
and the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment 
Stations both actively interested in the national universit}' enterprise 
and ready to move in solid phalanx. 

"They have seen how near the national university movement came 
to a certain victory and an auspicious beginning through the agency 
of that great giver, Mr. Andrew Carnegie. 

"They have new evidence that the press of the countr}-, except in a 
few centers influenced by local ambitions, is in sympathy with the 
national university proposition. 

"They have every reason to expect that the advancement of the 
Republic in area, wealth, power, and prosperity, through which we 
have come to a greater prominence among the nations, will be recog- 
nized by all intelligent patriots as constituting a new demand upon us 
for such steps as will tend to give the United States preeminence also 
in those higher things which are essential to true greatness." 

Your committee are in accord with these views of the national uni- 
versity committee, whose JrOO members are among the most distin- 
guished and most competent men of the country. 

The pending bill avoids every objection ever raised, wisely regards 
the welfare of all other educational institutions, looks to the best inter- 
ests of the Government, and to such work in the field of research as 
will early make of Washington both the educational and the scientific 
center of the world. To remove all fear of competition, the pending 
bill raises the standard of admission, as already stated, so that such as 
intend a supreme course in general studies must have made such gradu- 
ate attainments already as in the opinion of the President would entitle 
them to enter upon it. The requisite higher attainments could be 
gained either at home, in Washington, or elsewhere. This standard 
of admission would surpass that of any other institution. There is 
now no provision, as there was in previous bills, for material aid, either 
in mone}' or in lands (other than the little spot of ground solemnly dedi- 
cated to national universit}' uses b}' President Washington himself). 
It asks simply a suitable charter. The Congress has already granted 
charters to a number of institutions in the District of Columbia. More- 

S. Rep. 945 3 



34 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

over, while granting to them the privilege of being and the worldly 
advantage of bearing patriotic titles, it has at the sams time, in express 
terms, with one exception, made provision for the control of each in the 
interest of a particular religious faith. It can not hesitate, therefore, 
and will not when satisfied that the pending bill looks purely to the 
interests of the whole country and gives such control as will best pro- 
tect the proposed universitj^ from all meddling influences, whether 
individual, local, denominational, or political. 

Even the four or five Eastern institutions of learning which have thus 
far withheld their support of the national university proposition concede 
that Washington affords surpassing advantages for such a university 
because of its incomparable array of material facilities, supplemented 
by the constant presence in surpassing number (and their availability 
to some extent) of scholars, men of science, experts in every branch of 
the Government service, together with the foremost of legislators, 
jurists, and members of the national courts, besides opportunities for 
contact with the world's masters in the realms of diplomacy and states- 
manship. The facilities and opportunities are here. They have cost 
the whole country millions on millions. Shall they be monopolized 
hj institutions founded in private, local, and denominational interests, 
or shall they be made available in the interest of the whole American 
people, regardless of conflicting faiths, whether religious or political, of 
this alread}^ central figure among the nations — the American Republic? 

Having duly weighed the important historic facts above presented, 
reviewed the arguments for a national university contained in the sev- 
eral afiirmative reports upon the subject heretofore submitted to the 
Senate, and carefully considered the reasons urged by members of the 
executive council of the said national university committee as above 
set forth, your committee return the bill without amendment and 
recommend its passage by the Senate. 



HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE, CHAIRMAN WELLING- 
TON PRESIDING, JANUARY 10, 1899. 



REMARKS BY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR OF THE GEOLOGICAL 

SURVEY. 

Depaktment op the Intekior, 

United States Geological Survey, 

Wasfrington, D. C, January 30, 1899. 
Dear Governor: I inclose herewith the substance of my remarks before the com- 
•mittee on the national university. Will you not transmit them to the chairman with 
other remarks made before the committee and oblige, yours, truly, 

Chas. D. Walcott, Director. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Wa.?hington, D. C. 

Mr. Chairman: I think it very desirable that American students should have the 
opportunity of taking postgraduate courses in Washington, and thus avail themselves 
of the unequaled advantages this city, the seat of government, offers. I speak par- 
ticularly of those students who are pursuing scientific courses, as I am more familiar 
with what is being done by the Government in scientific investigation than with that 
in other lines. 

It is well known that the largest body of working geologists and topographic sur- 
veyors in the world is connected with the United States Geological Survey, and that 
great collections of minerals, rocks, and fossils are contained in the National Museum. 
It is equally well known that students in geology and allied sciences, after being 
graduated at the various colleges and universities in the United States, deem it desira- 
ble to go abroad for a postgraduate course in some one of the foreign universities, 
where they may come in contact with the leading men who are carrying on original 
investigations and take advantage of the opportunities offered for special study in all 
lines of geologic research. Fully 80 per cent of the present force have studied abroad, 
and many others would have done so if they had had the means to defray expenses. 

If sufficient room were available, comparatively slight additions to the present 
facilities in the laboratories of the National Museum and the Geological Survey would 
afford American students in geology the advantages at home for which they must at 
present go abroad. The postgraduates of Harvard, Chicago, and Stanford universi- 
ties who are training for geologic work have unusual facilities offered them at these 
universities, but even such are glad to serve as temporary field assistants on the Geo- 
logical Survey at nominal salaries, in order to get the training and to come in contact 
with working geologists. What is true of the Geological Survey is true also of many 
of the other scientific bureaus of the G.overnment. 

The National Museum is an institution where the postgraduate student may secure 
access to material for study and research in connecticn with men who are carrying 
forward scientific work of the highest type. If the museum Avere properly housed it 

35 



36 UI^IVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

might be a center or base from which the postgraduate student in Washington could 
avail himself of the facilities offered for study and investigation by the various scientific 
bureaus of the Government, such as the Fish Commission, the Zoological Park, the 
Geological Survey, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Weather, Botanical, Bio- 
logical, and Entomological bureaus of the Department of Agriculture. Systematic 
courses of lectures could be arranged for at small cost that would place before him the 
most advanced ideas and conclusions of the largest body of scientific investigators in 
the world. 

In the National Museum are found the beginnings of the scientific, department of a 
national university. A single well-trained man with a few assistants could render 
invaluable aid to hundreds of postgi-aduate and special students, whose principal 
need is direction as to the place and the best means of pursuing studies and investi- 
gations. Such an organization could be located in the administrative building that 
it has been proposed to erect as a nucleus of the national university. 

The National Museum could not at present give facilities to more than a score of 
students, but with the erection of a modern museum building, well equipped with 
laboratory space and a suitable staff to conduct the necessary work of installation 
and investigation, the scientific side of the national university might soon be estab- 
lished. It should be remembered that many of tlie officers of the scientific bureaus 
of the Government are directly connected with the museum staff as honorar)^ curators 
and custodians and that a number of them have laboratories within the museum 
building. 

As the university developed additional facilities could be offered to students of 
science by enlarging the scientific corps of the university and by furnishing special 
laboratories and facilities not now available in the crowded Government bureaus. 

I think that the national university should exert an educational infiuence of the 
highest type that would be felt in the remotest portions of the country. It should 
set the standard toward which all persons seeking higher education could look as to 
an ideal, a standard which would meet the approval of all our colleges and universi- 
ties, and which would not interfere with the work they are doing. 



LETTER TO JOHN W. HOYT AND REMARKS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE, 

BYMRWJM'GEE. 

Smithsonian Institution, 
BuKEAU OF American Ethnology, 

WasJdngton, January 31, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: Replying to your request for a statement of my views on the sub- 
ject of a national university before the Senate Committee to Estal)lish the University 
of the United States, I can hardly do better than to lay before its members the paper 
which Harper's New Monthly Magazine did me the honor to publish not long ago; 
in this communication to yourself giving expression to some thoughts not therein 
contained, namely: 

1. Concurrently with the development of our republican institutions a magnificent 
educational system has grown up in the United States. Beginning under the influ- 
ence of inherited and imported experience the earlier schools, colleges, and univer- 
sities were, in large part, private enterprises, or based on private foundations. 
Gradually the public-school system was developed and substituted for the private 
system ; and at length public high schools, State and othei' public normal schools. State 
agricultural colleges, and State universities Avere established, and by means of these 
institutions the public-school system has been so supplemented and extended as to 
include a considerable part of what is commonly called "higher education." 

2. Almost from the beginning of our public-school system the fact has been recog- 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 37 

nized that it is the function of public instruction to make good citizens. Accordinglj', 
the public instruction, at least in the common schools, the normal schools, and the 
so-called agricultural colleges (which are really institutes of technologj^) , has been 
based on the conditions and needs of our own country rather than on foreign or 
obsolete standards, and thereby the instruction has been made practical ; and, with 
the passage of time, the institutions have determined for themselves and for the coun- 
try what knowledge is best. To some extent the State universities have been affected 
by the contemporary institutions of high grade supported as private enterprises or by 
private endowment, and these, in turn, have in some measure borrowed standards 
and methods from other countries and earlier periods, and, in so far as they have done 
so, fall below the highest American standard; though it is gratifying to note that the 
tendency to follow lower standards is counteracted by the general introduction of sci- 
ence and technology into the curricula. On the whole it seems fair to say that a dis- 
tinctively American standard of education has been developed in this country; it is 
the function of this education to make better men and women, to strengthen the real 
foundation of citizenship, and to fit Americans for more and more successful conquest 
of natural forces and natural resources as the generations pass. 

3. The National Government, like most of the State governments, has found it 
expedient to investigate various natural conditions and resources for the public bene- 
fit; and thereby experts in different lines of knowledge have been employed and 
trained. In the national capital this has resulted in the development of various 
bureaus and one department (two, if the Smithsonian Institution be included) 
engaged in researches and surveys relating to the country and its resources. Thus a 
corps of scientific and technical experts has grown up, of such magnitude as to 
render Washington the leading scientific center, not only of the country but of the 
world . 

4. The work of the scientific and technical departments and bureaus of the Gov- 
ernment is directed by distinguished investigators and specialists; it is performed 
by juniors selected from among the citizens of the country, who profit by the associa- 
tion with and training of their official superiors, and in time diffuse the high stand- 
ards of knowledge throughout the country. Accordingly there is already an ill- 
organized system of creating and diffusing knowledge in the national capital, which 
is in close harmony with the fundamental }>rinciples of American education as 
developed in connection with the public schools. 

5. While we thus have in the United States a superb system of public education, 
beginning in the common schools and rising well toward the higher grades through 
State institutions, and while the system is effectively coordinated by the Federal 
Bureau of Education, we have not yet sufficient provision, or, indeed , any suitable 
provision, for the highest grades of education in accordance with American principles 
and standards. Accordingly there is a need for a Federal educational agency of such 
sort as to crown and perfect our public school system, to give American citizens the 
benefit of the highest education, and to fit our men and women to extend and widen 
the noble career of the nation of which they are constituent parts. 

I have the honor to be, yours, with respect, 

AV J McGee, 

Ethnologist in Charge, 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 

REMARKS OF W J M'GEE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE. 

Mr. Chairman: Believing that by so doing I can best serve the national university 
cause at this hearing, I take the liberty of laying before you a paper but lately pub- 
lished in Harpers' New Monthly Magazine, entitled "Our national seminary of 
learning," which reads as follows: 

"I have greatly wished to see a plan adopted by which the arts, sciences, and 



38 UNIVERSITY OF THE IIlSriTED STATES. 

belles-lettres could be taught in their fullest extent, thereby embracing all the advan- 
tages of European tuition with the means of acquiring the liberal knowledge which 
is necessary to qualify our citizens for the exigencies of public as well as private life 
(and which with me is a consideration of great magnitude), by assembling the youth 
from the different parts of this rising Kepublic, contributing from their intercourse 
an interchange of information to the removal of prejudices which might sometimes 
arise from local circumstances. ' 

So wrote George Washington in 1795; and he justified faith by works in bequeath- 
ing stocks to the value of $25,000 as a personal contribution toward his ideal 'semi- 
nary of learning,' and later in officially reserving a tract of 19 acres (long kiiown as 
University Square) as a site for the institution. Succeeding Presidents, John Adams, 
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, as well as others in later years, 
shared Washington's convictions, and urged upon Congress the desirability and expe- 
diency of founding a national university, and it would appear that nothing but inertia 
stood in the way of the realization of the dream of the Presidents. Then came the era 
of territorial expansion, when the energies of the nation were spent in extending settle- 
ment, in acquiring new lands, and in spanning the continent with the brilliant mosaic 
of Commonwealths stretching from Atlantic to Pacific; and with this vigorous activity 
in State making the idea of State rights grew and spread, even to the extent of obstruct- 
ing national progress in certain directions, and one of these was that looking toward 
a Federal institution of learning. Of late territorial conquest is checked, because the 
kernel of the continent has been taken; with the decline of activity in externals, 
internal and intellectual affairs are coming to the fore, and now ex-Governor Hoyt, 
Dr. Andrew D. White, President Jordan, President Dabney, and others of the salt of 
thi© earth are again urging execution of the long-delayed plan of the nation's founders 
for a national university. 

Such, in brief , is a century's exoteric history of the movement toward a national 
institution of learning — a history running the gamut from enthusiastic support almost 
to the point of consummation, through inertia, indifference, doubt, antagonism, 
apathy, revived appreciation, and renewed support. Meantime there was an under- 
current of progress in the direction indicated by Washington — a current so profound 
as scarce to ripple the surface, yet so powerful as to produce most of the results antici- 
pated. The full significance, even the bare fact, of this unheralded and unwritten 
progress is hardly recognized, yet it is a prominent feature in the esoteric history of 
the nation. We have a great national 'seminary of learning.' Albeit without 
name or proper domicile, without charter or definite organization, there is to-day in the 
national capital a Federal institution of knowledge more efficient and more useful, occu- 
pying a higher and 1)roader plane, than any other educational institution in exist- 
ence. It is maintained at a cost equivalent to an endowment exceeding §100,000,000; 
its faculty and fellows, many of them men of international repute, reach into thousands, 
and its influence is felt in every organized university, college, academy, and normal 
school of the land. 

The unforeseen, spontaneous, and only half-recognized growth of this great 
national seminary of useful knowledge is worthy of careful attention, partly because 
of the extent and importance of the institution, chiefly because its development 
expresses a tendency of civilization transcending the designs of even the wisest 
statesmen. 

President Jefferson perceived the need of surveys along the coast to guide the 
location of roadsteads and harbors, and thus to aid budding commerce; and he 
adopted Hassler, a Swiss engineer, and intrusted him with the execution of the sur- 
veys. For a time there was a disposition to draw on the technical schools of Europe 
for expert surveyors, draftsmen, and engravers, but it was soon found easier to train 
young Americans than to retrain middle-aged Europeans in the special directions 
demanded by the exigencies of the work; and thenceforward the Coast Survey 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 39 

became a technical training school, first for hydrographic surveying, then for topo- 
graphic surveying, and later for geodetic surveying. At the outset the 'complete art 
and mystery ' was inculcated in the growing bureau, but as time passed it was found 
advantageous to choose new men from among the graduates of colleges and universi- 
ties. Two consequences followed: The cost of educating the surveyors was divided 
between the teaching institution and the working institution; at the same time the 
demand for definite and practical collegiate training was recognized by students and 
faculties, and the teaching was modified to meet it. Thereby an indefinite relation 
grew up between the Survey and the organized institutions of learning, to the benefit 
of both. Again, men of high position in educational institutions were sometimes 
called to occupy places in the Survey, while trained surveyors and geodesists were 
occasionally called to professorial chairs, and in this way the indefinite relation was 
made more intimate. The survey grew with the decades, gradually rising above 
reproach of European rivals; its operations extended from the mid-coast bays along 
the entire Atlantic border, and thence to the Gulf and to the Pacific, and relations 
were established with new colleges and universities, until many of the scientific corps 
divided their allegiance between Survey work and professorial duty. To-day the 
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey is, as always, a Federal bureau, maintained 
solely for practical survey work designed to meet the industrial and commercial 
demands of a great nation; yet it is incidentally one of the finest training scliools in 
the world for advanced students in geodesy and certain ])ranches of surveying, within 
which ambitious graduates seek post-graduate courses, while wise regencies gladly 
draw on its corps of experts for the strengthening of their faculties. 

An episode in 1812 led to popular demand for an enlarged Xavy, and the studj' 
of navigation received new impetus. One of the results was the acquisition of astro- 
nomical instruments and materials, which were finally gathered into a national observ- 
atory, naval in name and plan, though ]>artly civilian in personnel. Here the history 
of the Coast Survey was repeated, and the excellent work (such as the discovery of 
the Martin satellites by Asaph Hall) received recognition throughout the world, 
and aided in placing this country in the front rank among the nations engaged in 
astronomical researches. 

A collateral result of the impetus in navigation was the inauguration of an Ameri- 
can ephemeris, or nautical almanac. At first the requisite computations were based 
on certain values for the ' elements of the solar system ' derived from early observa- 
tions and reductions which were known to be imperfect, and were accepted by civi- 
lized nations only because the labor of reinvestigating and finally establishing the 
orbits, volumes, and weights of the planets and principal satellites was so great that 
all Europe shrank from it; but about 1860 the American astronomer Simon Xew- 
comb addressed himself to the task, almost single handed, in the Nautical Almanac 
Office of the United States. The work extended over decades, during which coop- 
erative relations between the Federal bureau and the leading universities of the land 
arose and became intimate. The results are voluminous and technical, and may not 
easily be summarized. It suffices to say that the sun and the eight principal planets, 
together with the moon and some of the asteroids, have been literally weighed and 
measured, and their paths surveyed. With the accomplishment of this herculean 
task the 'elements' were corrected so that ephemerides can be prepared for decades 
or centuries, instead of months or years only as in the mid-century; and to-day the 
shipping of the world is guided by the determinations of the Washington office, 
while the astronomers of domestic and foreign universities frequent the office to gain 
inspiration and knowledge for the benefit of their home institutions. 

One of President Jefferson's plans for the development and enrichment of the 
country was reconnoissance of the mysterious 'Great West,' and a part of the energy 
of the military was expended in exisloring expeditions. This precedent was followed 
by other Presidents; and when steam was harnessed a series of explorations and 



40 UlSriVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

surveys, ostensibly and partly for railways to the Pacific, was inaugurated. In time 
the explorations were refined into surveys, at first geographic, and later geologic; 
and in the centennial year there were four important surveys (two military and 
two under the Interior Department) at work in the Cordilleran region. Three 
years later these Avere consolidated and transferred wholly to the civilian department, 
and the field was extended to cover the entire country. This geological survey 
has progressed apace; its products are topographic maps, geologic atlases, and 
descriptive or philosophic treatises on the geology and mineral resources of the 
country. The heads of the four original surveys — Wheeler, King, Hayden, and 
Powell — sought as collaborators trained graduates from leading American and foreign 
institutions of learning, and also trained to the work experts of their own selection; 
and this policy was maintained by Powell during the fifteen years of his directorship 
in the Geological Survey. In this way the Bureau became a training school for 
topographic surveyors and geologic experts. To-day a hundred topographers and 
half as many geologists, mostly picked men from the graduating classes of leading 
American universities and colleges, are on the Survey rolls, and students of survey- 
ing and geology look forward eagerly to temporary or permanent connection with the 
Survey, even as volunteers. 

The recent impetus in geologic and engineering study, and indeed in university 
activity, must be ascribed partly to the professional demand created by this Bureau, 
while a dozen universities include in their faculties experts trained in the Survey. 
Yet the Bureau is not maintained as a school by the Federal Government, primarily 
or purposely; it is so endowed and conducted as best to promote public interests 
through development of natural resources, and the educational function is purely 
incidental. The results of the work, both material and intellectual, are important. 
It is recognized throughout the world that the United States Geological Survey is the 
most extensive and productive in existence, and different foreign countries are mod- 
eling their surveys after the American plan; and the enrichment of the country 
through the researches of the Bureau is beyond estimate. The scientific investiga- 
tions have revolutionized geology; the recognition of the 'base-level of erosion' by 
Powell led to the development of an essentiallj- new science — geomorphy, or the new 
geology — whereby earth history may be read from land forms as well as from rock 
formations; the origin of rocks and minerals has been traced more fully than else- 
where; the marvelous record of the ice ages has been interpreted to the edification 
of domestic and foreign students, and in many ways the Survey and its indefinitely 
yet really affiliated universities have so enlarged knowledge that to-day America 
leads the world in the science of geology. 

One of the most remarkable testaments ever recorded was that of James Smith- 
son, an eccentric Briton of noble blood, who bequeathed a fortune for establishing in 
the United States an institution designed for 'the increase and diffusion of knowledge 
among men.' In 1846 this bequest was rendered available and the Smithsonian 
Institution was created. Under the far-seeing policy proposed by the first Secretary, 
Joseph Henry, and adopted by the ablest regency of the times, the institution 
assumed the dutj'^ of promoting research and publishing the results. One of the 
earliest lines of research related to those branches of physics connected with electric- 
ity and magnetism, and telegraphy was developed and perfected largely in the insti- 
tution; then, under Henry's liberal policy, the results were turned over to the public 
to become a new art and industry. Another line of research related to meteorology 
and the climate of the country; this was pursued actively imtil its national impor- 
tance was recognized, when the work was surrendered to the Federal Government 
and grew into the United States Weather Bureau, the largest institution of its kind. 
A third line of investigation related to fishes and fisheries, and this was carried 
forward with great energy and acumen by Assistant Secretary (afterward Secretary) 
Spencer F. Baird. At first the work was purely scientific, but when it was perceived 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 41 

by students and statesmen alike that the investigations afforded a means of conquest 
over the waters for human weal through establishing new food sources this line of 
work also was turned over to the General Government, and it has expanded into the 
present United States Fish Commission, the most extensive in the world. When 
geologic explorations and surveys were checked in the troublous years 1861-1865, 
the institution unostentatiously encouraged geologic researches and saw to the preser- 
vation of geologic material; and when peace dawned the carefully protected germ 
blossomed into the four Federal surveys of the seventies, to bear fruit in the present 
Geological Survey. Soon after its creation the institution began amassing a scientific 
library for the use of collaborators and the public; the collection of books soon became 
general, and proved especially useful to national legislators gathering annually in the 
capital, whereupon this line of work was in turn transferred to the Government, and 
from this germ has grown the invaluable Librarj^ of Congress and the great National 
Library whose gilded dome adorns the finest library building the world has thus far 
seen. With the collection of books Henry began the collection of objects illustrating 
natural history and human progress; this work was actively continued by Baird, and 
afterwards by G. Brown Goode, who gave his life to its successful prosecution; it has 
matured in the inadequately housed though admirably equipped National Museum, 
which was long since surrendered to the State and has become an important Federal 
bureau. A dozen j^ears ago the naturalists of the museum found it necessary some- 
times to obtain and preserve living animals; the small collection soon attracted public 
interest and gradually developed into a national zoological park, already turned 
over to the public as the joint property of the Federal Government and the Federal • 
district. 

Under an inspiration originating with Albert Gallatin and continued by Lewis 
H. Morgan, the institution began ethnologic researches among the American Indians 
soon after its creation. When one of the four Federal surveys of the seventies (the 
Powell survey) took up the study of the native races, the accumulated material was 
donated to the Fetieral organization, and when the surveys were consolidated the 
ethnologic work was transferred to a bureau of American ethnology created for the 
purpose; and this bureau, which has since been maintained under Federal auspicts, 
has classified the Indians of the continent and organized a new science — demology, 
or the science of humanity. During recent years the third secretary, Samuel P. 
Langley, has built up an astrophysical laboratory, which has already assumed such 
proportions as to be of public importance and is now devoted to public use and 
supported largely by public funds. Thus the unique institution endowed by 
Smithson is a nidus of knowledge, a nurserj' of s(^ientific bureaus; and half of these 
bureaus now maintained by the Federal Government have originated within it, while 
all have benefited by its aid and encouragement. At the same time the institution 
has served as a scientific clearing house, in which the drafts of discovery are scanned 
and the coin of conclusion tested, that the valid may be stamped and the spurious 
branded; and in the last half century no advance in science of the first importance 
has been made in America without the indorsement and aid of the Smithsonian at 
some stage. Throughout its career the Smithsonian Institution, like the Federal 
bureaus, has sustained an indefinite yet most fruitful relation with the educational 
institutions of this and other countries, and the ambitious graduate esteems the honor 
of connection with it above the parchment from his alma mater, while progressive 
presidents and regents miss no chance of securing Smithsonian experts for their 
faculties. 

The example of the Smithsonian has not been lost on sagacious statesmen, and 
the youngest department of the Federal Government has been made a nursery of 
applied science, as in the Smithsonian of pure science; nominally a department of 
agriculture, it is really a department of national knowledge concerning natural 
resources. One of its branches is the now invaluable Weather Bureau; another is 



42 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

the Bureau of Animal Industry, which has stood well to the fore in teaching the 
nations of the earth the lesson of the germ as a cause and cure of disease; a third is 
the Biological Survey, which has already become a model for other countries; there 
is a division of entomology, which has taught protection against the ravages of insects, 
and thereby reduced the cost of food; and there are divisions of botany, forestry, 
agrostology, vegetal physiology, pomology, and chemistry, offices of fiber investiga- 
tion and road inquiry, and a museum. In addition there are fifty or more agricul- 
tural experiment stations distributed over the country in such wise as to maintain 
contact with all parts of the body politic. The lines of work in the Department are 
too numerous for summary statement, the methods too many sided for following by 
fewer than a score of specialists; yet there is one feature in which the method is sim- 
ple and accordant with that of the other bureaus — the various divisions, offices, and 
bureaus cooperate, directly or indirectly, with the universities and technical schools 
in all parts of the country. 

This sketch of the organized institutions, though incomplete, indicates the unpre- 
meditated liberality of the nation as a patron of practical learning, and suggests the 
notable results achieved. It is particularly incomplete as regards the many military 
institutions; but these are essentially distinct from the civilian organizations — the 
military idea is exclusive and intensive; the civilian idea is inclusive and evolutionary. 

The workings of the unorganized Federal institution constituting the national 
seminary are especially significant, partly because unforeseen by the founders of the 
nation, ill recognized even by the statesmen of the present, yet a sign of the times 
during each year or decade. 

The internal workings are simple. Each bureau chief is charged with certain 
official duties and credited with certain funds to be applied in their performance, 
and within certain limitations (partly fixed by the civil-service law) he strives to 
secure the performance of the duties in the best practicable manner and at the low- 
est pi-acticable cost. To this end he either employs or trains experts, whose knowl- 
edge and skill increase by exercise; so each office becomes a hive of busy workers, 
each the best available specialist in his line, and all controlled by a single plan and 
united by common interest. The incentive to individual effort is strong; research is 
always new and attractive; the applications of knowledge are constantly extending, 
so that the shackles of routine are ever rent; with each new discovery new conditions 
arise and the most capable men move forward; with each expansion of the service 
new blood is introduced, so that capacity and opportunity combine in a cumulative 
progress in which every effort bears fruit. Withal there is in each office such diver- 
sity of function as practically to prevent 'envy, hatred, and malice,' while the can- 
ker of inactivity is not. The several hives are combined in a great colony, in which 
the motives are alike, while the methods are sufficiently diversified to conduce toward 
harmony. This harmony is expressed, and at the same time constantly promoted, by 
various unofficial associations and other instrumentalities maintained by the workers 
themselves : There are in Washington seven scientific societies, loosely united under a 
joint commission, besides several other learned bodies, whose principal founders and 
chief supporters represent the score or more of bureaus of learning constituting the 
national seminary; two of the societies publish periodicals (the American Anthropolo- 
gist and the National Geographic Magazine), which are the leading exponents of their 
sciences in America, and several others issue journals of international circulation. In 
addition there is a unique club— the Cosmos Club — composed chiefly of scientific, 
literary, and artistic representatives of the Federal institutions of practical learning, 
where the savants of the world are welcomed; here Herbert Spencer, Helmholtz, 
and other makers of the intellectual world have broken bread and joined in the 
daily feasts of reason to which the Cosmos Club man is wont. 

By means of the bond of official interest, and the still stronger bond of scientific 
interest, the collaborators of the Federal bureaus of research are united in a scientific 



UNIVERSITY OF THE IHSTITED STATES, 43 

circle which is commonly regarded as the broadest and strongest in the country, if 
not in the world. Through official necessity and unofficial association a strong didac- 
tic element is introduced in the scientific bureaus. Commonly the chiefs are among 
the foremost living specialists in their respective lines, and one of their main func- 
tions is the instruction of collaborators by precept and example, while the principal 
collaborators in turn are necessarily employed partly in the inculcation of principles 
and the exposition of methods among their assistants. It is this didactic element 
which renders the Federal position so attractive to progressive students, and leads 
them to compete for volunteer connections, or places yielding no more salary than a 
scholarship or fellowship in a university; and it is largely through this competition 
that the ranks of workers in the scientific hives are kept filled. This training-school 
system is seldom reckoned by statesmen, rarely foreseen in its fullness even by the 
bureau chiefs. It is simply the product of experience and effort to accomplish the 
best expert work at the least cost; yet it is a power in shaping Federal progress. The 
laboratory work of the officers is combined with the class work of the unofficial socie- 
ties, in which the more active chiefs, collaborators, and assistants announce their 
results, describe their methods, and, in brief, formulate and expound the knowledge 
gained in the national seminary of learning. During each season, from November 
to May, several hundred technical lectures, equal in learning and superior in fresh- 
ness to those of the best universities, and as many popular addresses prepared by 
men of ability, are delivered; and by so many of these as he is able to attend each 
Federal expert profits. Of formal tuition there is none; even the lectures and 
addresses are free to members of the societies, and commonly to all; and the liberal 
leaven springing from this emancipation of intelligence has spread until the learned 
circle of the national capital has risen above that secretiveness, exclusiveness, phar- 
isaism, and other manifestations of intellectual penury by which budding science 
was degraded. Here the fountains of knowledge gush and brim over, and whoso 
will may drink freely. A score of masters, a hundred hiarh-grade instructors, and a 
thousand fellows in science are constantly at work in the ' national seminary of 
learning.' Every branch of useful knowledge is cultivated; the arts are indirectly 
promoted, to the extent that the capital has become an artistic center; literature is 
fostered, always as a means, sometimes as an end, and here several of our notable 
writers— like John Burroughs, Lester F. Ward, 'Mark Twain,' John Hay, Clifford 
Howard, John G. Nicolay, Frances Hodgson Burnett, and others — have gained 
inspiration and training. Yet the strength of the school lies especially in science. 
In this intellectual vineyard, more than in any other, tiie modern cult of knowl- 
edge — the cheering faith in conquest of lower nature for the good of mankind — has 
rooted and borne fruit. 

The more complex external relations are suggested by the internal relations. 
The primary relations are with the universities and technical schools, and are of 
three types. In the first type, ambitious pupils in the educational institutions aspire 
to post-graduate positions in the great Federal institution, and shape their studies to 
this end. 'Their name is legion,' and they come to fill, at nominal salaries, the 
nameless fellowships in the national seminary. In the second type, experts for the 
Federal service are chosen among university professors, who, in the interests of expe- 
diency, thenceforward divide their time between official labor and professorial duty. 

This arrangement is prevalent. Within the last five years the Geological Survey 
alone has maintained relations of this type with Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Columbia, 
Johns Hopkins, and Chicago universities, as well as with the State universities of 
West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin; the sim- 
ilar relations of the Coast and Geodetic Survey are almost equally extensive, and 
those of the various bureaus in the Agricultural Department are still more extensive, 
so that there is hardly a high-gj-ade educational institution in the United States whose 
faculty does not include one or more Federal officials. This arrangement has been 



44 UNIVERSITY OF THE UKITED STATES. 

criticised in the halls of Congress and in the public press, yet it persists and con- 
stantly increases, simplj' because it meets a need of the times and inures to the benefit 
both of the bureaus and the universities. In the third type of relation the post- 
graduate masters in the national seminary are called to fill educational positions for 
which they have been qualified by their Federal service. This also is prevalent, as 
shown by recent examples. Thomas C. Chamberlin went from the Geological Survey 
to the presidency of the University of Wisconsin, Mark W. Harrington from the 
Weather Bureau to the head of the State University of Washington, and T. C. Men- 
denhall from the Coast and Geodetic Survey to the presidency of the Worcester Poly- 
technic Institute; Joseph P. Iddings and R. D. Salisbury passed from the Geological 
Survey and William H. Holmes from the Bureau of American Ethnology to accept 
professorships in Chicago University; Israel 0. Russell left the Geological Survey to 
succeed Alexander Winchell as professor of geology in the University of Michigan; 
Robert S. Woodward, Tarleton H. Bean, and J. L. Wortman have been called from 
Federal positions at Washington to professorial positions in Columbia Uni,versity; 
and these examples might be doubled or even quadrupled. The influence of the 
seminary is not confined to the civilian bureaus, but extends to the Army and Navy, 
and even to the halls of Congress, the Cabinet, and the Supreme Bench; quite recently 
two high Federal officers affiliated with the scientific circle have been called to head 
universities — Hon. William L. Wilson, ex-Postmastei -General, becomes president of 
Washington and Lee, and Hon, Charles W. Dabney, Assistant Secretary of Agricul- 
ture, has been chosen president of Vanderbilt. Thus in certain features — and these 
are signs of the times-^the nameless national institution dominates the local institu- 
tions of learning; it is the keystone of the structure in which they are pillars. 

There are secondary relations between the national center of knowledge and 
many industrial and other institutions. The Federal service is essentially practical 
and open to all, so that the work reflects national character and training. The Fed- 
eral experts are of the people, with whom they associate constantly, and, under the 
liberal policy pursued in the capital, freely convey information through conversation 
and correspondence, and sometimes through the ephemeral press and formal dis- 
course; again, advanced workers in the Federal colony are frequently tempted by the 
richer emolument of unofficial position, and leave the capital to shape activity in 
mining, manufacturing, engineering, and other enterprises. In these waj'S the center 
is kept in touch with all parts of the body politic, and the influence of constantlj^ 
growing knowledge is diffused widely. 

The appropriations for the maintenance of the scientific bureaus ftr the current 
year aggregate in round numbers 18,000,000, and the employees (of whom a consid- 
erable majority are scientific experts) exceed 5,000; this is exclusive of the Smith- 
sonian Institution proper, the Patent Office — originally created as a scientific bureau — 
and the Corps of Engineers. While most of the offices and officers are in the capital, 
local branches and stations are distributed throughout the country. Most of the 
bureaus are inadequately housed, largely in rented quarters, for as their growth has 
exceeded anticipation, so it has outrun provision for public buildings; j^et from time 
to time suitable domiciles are erected. The various bureaus have never been united 
administratively, and most of them are now organized separatel}^ under four Depart- 
ments (Navy, Treasury, Interior, and Agricultural) and the Smithsonian Institution — 
the Fish Commission and the Bureau of Labor remaining independent of the Executive 
Departments. Plans have been suggested for segregating them in a single department, 
or perhaps under a regency something like that of the Smithsonian, but these plans are 
far from mature. The present dean of the scientific corps, as president of the joint 
commission and as patron and promoter of knowledge, is Hon. Gardiner G. Hubbard, 
a regent of the Smithsonian Institution; the nestor is Maj. J. W. Powell, the ex- 
plorer of Colorado Canyon and maker of the Geological Survey and the Bureau of 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 45 

American Ethnology, a bureau chief since 1868; yet these and other leaders shape 
progress only through force of character and example, for of general organization 
there is none. 

So it is not too much to say that President Washington's bright dream of national 
education is largely realized — that there is a national seminary of learning in the 
national capital in which the arts, belles-lettres, and especially the sciences, are 
' taught in their fullest extent, thereby embracing all the advantages of European 
tuition, with the means of acquiring the liberal knowledge which is necessary to qual- 
ify our citizens for the exigencies of public as well as private life.' It is a nameless 
and structureless university, standing on a higher plane than any local school, how- 
soever exalted in aim and work. Its patrons are the founders and builders of the 
nation; its chancellors, past and present, are such masters as Henry, Baird, Powell, 
Newcomb, and Langiey, whose fame is broad as civilization; its regency is the Fed- 
eral executive, legislative, and judicative combined; its faculty includes nearly ail 
American creators of knowledge; its fellows are a thousand picked post-graduates, 
and its preparatory school comprises the organized universities and colleges of half a 
hundred commonwealths. It coordinates our educational institutions, from univer- 
sity to public school; and, more than all else, it establishes the true rai^on d'etre of 
education by determining, through direct application to human welfare, what knowl- 
edge is best. The final step of organizing this great university is a duty of the early 
future. 



REMARKS OF EX-GOVERNOR JOHN W. HOYT, CHAIRMAN, ETC., BEFORE 
the; SENATE COMMITTEE JANUARY iO, 1899. 

Mr. Chairman: I do not rise this morning for the ]nirpose of making an argument 
for the establishment of the University of the United States, having already done 
this in many forms and from about every point of view% Moreover, the ground has 
been often and so well covered by the ablest men of the nation that the only reason 
for asking a hearing at this time lies in the possibility of getting that attention to a 
fresh discussion which may not be gained for one of the past, however important 
and complete. 

The proposition has been assailed both by men incompetent to pronounce judg- 
ment upon such a matter and by selfish supporters of schemes of their own under 
pretense of apprehended competition; but the cause of the university rests upon a 
solid foundation and can not fail. 

Ambitious sectarists and speculators in lands adjacent to institutions incorpo- 
rated under false titles for the evident purpose of misleading Congress and the people 
have delayed action by the National Legislature, but they can not do so much longer. 

The reasons for urging the establishment of a central and true university as the 
climax to our present incomplete system of American public education and as one 
means of helping to complete that system in all its departments are invincible and 
will prevail. 

The object of my remarks is rather to reaffirm the confidence of a multitude of 
distinguished friends of the enterprise that when once approved by Congress the 
crowning university will find citizens of fortune in all parts of the country to richly 
endow it, and to saj- to members of the Senate committee, in behalf of the national 
committee, now grown to be more than 400 and more than half of them presidents 
of colleges and universities, that in view of the objections to Government appropria- 
tions entertained by some of the Senators we cheerfully assent to the striking from 
the pending bill sections 12, 13, and 15, which relate to the small an:ounts therein 



46 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

provided for merely as a means of enabling the regents to meet, organize, and make 
provision for the early beginning of work, as well as to inaugurate the movement 
necessary to an ample endowment — one that should enable the institution at an early 
day to become just what it is intended to be, the crowning university of the world. 

Furthermore, while not doubting the readiness of all to approve section 11, which 
grants to the corporation of the university the few acres of ground cornering on E and 
Twenty-third streets NW., I have thought best to lay before yourself and other mem- 
bers of the Senate committee certified copies of the original papers, which show beyond 
the possibility of a doubt that the consecration of said grounds to the uses of a national 
university was actually made by Washington as President, and by authority of both 
Congress and the proprietors of the lands which by gift and purchase became the 
property of the United States for Government uses, as designated by Washington, and 
for the city of Washington. 

To this end I here offer evidence that can not be questioned, namely: 

( 1 ) The act of Congress authorizing the appointment of three commissioners to 
survey the District of Columbia and to plat the city of Washington, for which see 
United States Statutes at Large, Chapter XXVIII — An act for establishing the tem- 
porary and permanent seat of the Governn:ient of the United States, approved 
July 16, 1790. 

(2) The agreement by the owners of lands constituting the District of Columbia 
on the occasion of the conveyance thereof to the United States for the seat of the 
General Government. This agreement entered into by the proprietors is as follows: 

" We, the undersigned, in consideration of the great benefits we expect to derive 
from having the Federal City laid off on our lands, do hereby agree and bind our- 
selves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, to convey in trust to the President 
of the United States, or commissioners or such persons as he shall appoint, by good 
and sufficient deeds in fee simple, the whole of our respective lands v, hich he may 
think proper to include within the lines of the Federal City for the purpose and on 
the conditions following: 

"'The President shall have the sole power and directing of the Federal City to 
be laid off in what manner he pleases. He may retain any number of squares he may 
think proper for public hnprovement or other piiblic iise.' * * * 

' ' In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 30th day of 
March, 1791." 

(From proceedings of the commissioners of buildings and grounds of the city of 
Washington and District of Columbia, Vol. I, p. 7.) 

I certify that the above is an extract from the Commissioners' proceedings, Vol. I, 
p. 7. 

John Stewart, 
Custodian of Becords. 

(3) From copy of Morris & Greenleaf's contract with the District Commissioners 
dated December 24, 1793, the following: 

"And that the said Robert Morris and James Greenleaf shall have a right to choose 
the remaining 1,500 lots lying to the northeast of the said Massachusetts avenue, or 
any part thereof they may think proper, excepting one-half of the squares which 
shall adjoin the spot that maj' be appointed for a national university, which is 
expected to be fixed on the northeast side of said avenue." 

(From American State Papers — Miscellaneous, Vol. I, p. 223.) 

I certify that the above is an extract from the Commissioners' proceedings. Vol. I, 
p. 218. 

John Stewart, C. E., 
Custodian of said Eecords. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UlSTITED STATES. 47 

Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, 

Washington, January 13, 1S99. 
Dear Sir : I found a few references to the national university in one of the origi- 
nal Commissioners' letter books, of which the following extract is a copy of one 
(Letters, vol. 3, p. 200): 

"Washington, 1st October, 1796. 
"Sir: Conformably to your wish, expressed to us when we had last the honor of 
your company, we have taken into consideration such matters relative to the busi- 
ness (if the city as appeared to require your attention, and beg leave respectfullj' to 
submit our opinions thereon. With respect to a national university, we are of opinion 
that the space heretofore proposed to be appropriated for a fort and barracks on Peter's 
Hill is the most proper site for that object. * * * 

" (t. Scott, 
" A. White, 
" Commissioners. 



'President of the United States." 



John W. Hoyt, Esq. 



John Ste\vakt, C. E., 

Custodian of Public Records. 



(4) The letter from President Washington to the Commissioners of the Federal 
District: 

"Mt. Vernon, Va., Oct. il, '96. 

"Gentlemen: According to my promise, I have given the several matters contained 
in your letter of the 1st instant the best consideration I am able. The following is 
the result, subject, however, to alterations if upon further investigation and the dis- 
cussion I mean to have with you on these topics I should find cause therefor. 

" Had those obstacles opposed themselves to it which are enumerated by one of 
the Commissioners, I should, for reasons which are now unnecessary to assign, have 
given a decided preference to the site which was first had in* contemplation for a 
university in the Federal City. But as those obsta(;les appear to be insurmountable, 
the next best site for this purpose, in my opinion, is the square surrounded by num- 
bers 21, 22, 34, 35, 60 to 63, and I decide in favor of it accordingly. * * * " 

"George Washington." 

(From Sparks' s Life of Washington, Vol. XII, pp. 321, 322; original source, pro- 
ceedings of the commissioners of buildings and grounds of the city of Washington 
and District of Columbia, Vol. II.) 

(5) From register of squares. Vol. I, page 1: 

George Washington, President of the United States of America, to Thomas Beall, of 
Georgetown, and John M. Gannt: 

You are hereby requested to convey all the streets in the city of Washington, as 
they are laid out and delineated on the plan of the said city hereto annexed, and 
also the several squares, parcels, and lots of ground following, to wit: 

First. * * * 

Second. * * * 

Third. * * * 

Fourth. The public appropriation bounded on the north by the south side of north 
E St., on the east by the west side of Twenty-third St. west, on the west by the east 
side of Twenty-fifth st. west, and on the south side by the Potomac River. 

Correct copy. 

John Stewart, C. E., 
Custodian of Commissioners' Records of the City of Washington, D. C. 



48 UinVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

(6) From Register of Squares, Vol. I, p. 3: 

A statement of the public grounds appropriated to the use of the United States in the city of 

Washington. 

Appropriations. Designation, etc. Acres. Rs. Ps. 

No. 1 The President's square. 

No. 2 The Capitol square and Mall east of 15th St. 

No. 3 The park south of Tiber Creek and west of 

15th St. west. 

No. 4 The University square, south of squares Nos. 

33 and 44 and to Potomac River 19 1 21 

No. 5. 
No. 6. 
No. 7. 
No. 8. 
No. 9. 
No. 10. 
No. 11. 
No. 12. 
No. 13. 
No. 14. 
No. 15. 
No. 16. 
No. 17. 
True copy from a paper in the handwriting and certified by Nicholas King. 

P. J. Elgar, S. W., City. 

Correct copy. 

John Stewart, 

Custodian of Records. 

(7) Acts of Congress recognizing Washington's dedication of site as late as the 
Thirty-eighth Congress. (U. S. Stat. L., Vol. V.) 

By authority of the Twenty-seventh Congress, page 526: 

"Chap. CCLXXVII. An act to authorize the construction of a depot for charts 
and instruments of the Navy of the United States * * * 

"Approved Aug. 31, 1842." 

From an act of the Thirty-eighth Congress (Sess. 1, Chap. 107, p. 701), to wit, the 
general appropriation bill passed by said Congress: 

"For grading and enclosing University square, in the city of Washington, upon 
which the depot of charts and instruments has been erected, twelve thousand, five 
hundred dollars." 

Further citations are unnecessary. The said grounds, always known as "Univer- 
sity square" until used as the site of a "depot for instruments," and then for a "naval 
observatory," and now. for what is known as the "Hygienic Museum," were dedi- 
cated by the Father of his Country in his capacity as President of the United States, 
and will properly belong to the university of the United States, or national univer- 
sity, when established. The Government paid nothing for them and has had the 
free use of them for nearly half a century. It should be pleased, therefore, to see 
them at last serving the high purpose for which they were selected, surveyed, and 
set apart by the supreme founder and first head of the Republic. 

I now gladly give way to the few other friends who have been invited to address 
you briefly, and may afterwards offer two or three letters from still others who could 
not be present with us on so short a notice. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 49 

A UNIVERSITY AT WASHINGTON. 

By Hon. Andrew D. White, United States Ambassailor to Germany. 

[From the Forum of Febniarj', 1889.] 
PREFATORY NOTICE. 

The following article was written some years since, but as I am informed that it 
may still be of use, I have consented to its republication. 

Of course, the statistics given in it regarding the libraries and various scientific 
associations and institutions in Washington Avhich would contribute to the value and 
strength of the university have changed somewhat since the article was written, but 
this very change makes its arguments even stronger than before. 

I may also state, as an additional reason for the esta]:)lishment of a thoroughly 
equipped university at Washington, the fact that by drawing advanced students 
largely from the Southern States, as well as the Northern, it would mingle the two, 
arouse sympathies, and create friendships between them, and thus tend to bring 
North and South more and more into thorough union of feeling. Great as the advan- 
tages of the proposed university would be to the country as a whole, they would be 
greatest of all to the Southern States, which have not yet developed so fully the 
higher scientific and technical education as the Northern States have done. Such 
an institution would certainly act with vast power in developing the resources and 
industries of the South. 

One or two points ought perhaps to be developed more fully. It has been urged 
that the attempt of the promoters of a national university at Washington is to estab- 
lish an institution which shall lord it over the existing universities and colleges and 
draw from their strength. I can see no possibility of any such result. The institu- 
tion proposed would be simply one of the great universities of the country, on an 
equality with the best, and in close relations with all. No such thing as domineer- 
ing over them would be possible. It would strengthen rather than weaken all the 
existing universities and colleges, by providing a larger choice of first-rate men for 
their faculties and by giving additional incentives to the honorable ambition of their 
most capable graduates. 

It has also been said that an institution governed by persons receiving their 
appointments from the President or from Congress, or from both, would be unduly 
influenced by political considerations. This seems to me to be an argument from 
theory utterly unwarranted by fact. Political questions have never in the slightest 
degree influenced the management of the Smithsonian Institution or the choice of 
any person connected with it, although the members of its governing body are 
appointed by the President or elected by Congress. 

• What I should most like to see would be some one of our great millionaires rising 
to the height of the great argument and endowing a national university at Washing- 
ton with, say, $10,000,000 or $12,000,000, making a provision for the election of a 
governing body partly through selection by the President of the United States, 
partly through election by Congress, partly through election by the trustees them- 
selves, and partly through election by the graduates, very much as some of our great 
Northern universities are governed, as, for example, Cornell University, which has 
now^ been managed during more than thirty years by a board composed partly of 
State officers, partly by persons chosen by the ballots of the trustees, and partly by 
those chosen by the alumni, and during all this period there has never been in the 
board the slightest intrusion of political or sectarian considerations. 

Its charter contains the provision that persons of all political parties and religious 
sects shall be equally eligible to all offices and appointments, and also the provision 

S. Rep. 945 4 



50 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

that in the selection of persons for any office in the university no person shall be 
chosen or rejected on account of any religious or political views which he may or 
may not entertain. 

There is also an additional provision in the Cornell charter under which, with the 
exception of ex officio trustees, the term of office of each member of the governing 
body is five years, and this might well be adopted in the charter of the proposed 
university at Washington. 



Regarding the position of Washington as a center in which are brought together 
great educational resources, and from which are radiated vast influences upon Amer- 
ican life, the first main point is that it is the permanent or temporary residence of 
very many leading men upon whom a university might draw for its lecture rooms or 
council chambers. In Congress, from which most people expect little of the sort, 
are many who can speak wdth acknowledged authority on subjects which every uni- 
versity worthy of the name has to consider. We sometimes hear sneers at Western 
Congressmen, and yet, out of the small number I have the honor to know, I can at 
this moment recall two who, apart from large diplomatic experience, stand in the 
highest rank of American scholars. 

Next, as to men specially known in literary pursuits, the veteran historian and 
statesman who years ago chose Washington as his residence has proved to be a far- 
sighted pioneer. Others have followed him, and the number consequently increases. 
Everything combines to attract them— the salubrity of the place, save in midsummer; 
the concourse of men best worth knovring from all parts of the world, and the attract- 
iveness of a city in which intellectual eminence has thus far asserted itself above 
wealth. So well known is this that the various societies of a literary tendency are 
more and more making Washington their annual place of meeting. The American 
Historical Society was one of the first to do this, and others are following its example. 

But it is more especially as a source of scientific activity that Washington has 
taken the foremost place in the nation. It is rapidly becoming one of the great 
scientific centers of the world. The Smithsonian Institution, the National Museum, 
the great Government surveys, sundry Government commissions and bureaus whose 
work is largely scientific, and many retired officers of the Army and Navy who have 
interested themselves in scientific pursuits, all combine to lay strong foundations for 
scientific activity. About the year 1870 was established the Philosophical Society of 
Washington, under the presidency of Joseph Henry. In the number of its meet- 
ings, as w^ell as in the variety, range, and importance of the papers presented, this 
society soon took a leading place. Neither in Boston, Philadelphia, New York, nor 
elsewhere in our country are meetings of similar societies held wdth the frequency and 
regularity which characterize these, nor are the papers presented elsewhere, on the. 
whole, of as much consequence in promoting research as those thus brought out at 
Washington. 

Owing to the development of scientific w' ork which has followed its establishment, 
the Philosophical Society has been found unable to meet the demands upon it, and 
five more special scientific organizations have been successfully established as off- 
shoots. The latest of these, the National Geographic Society, has already a member- 
ship of five or six hundred. The natural effect of bringing together the large body of 
scientific w^orkers employed in the various bureaus of the Government is not only to 
give vigor to these societies, but to create a liking for the pursuits of science which 
extends far beyond the society limits. And another effect of the spirit thus engen- 
dered is to attract various other national scientific organizations to Washington as 
the best place for their annual meetings. 

This aggregation of so many investigators in so many fields has naturally led to 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 



51 



the gathering of apparatus and means for carrying on scientific inquiry, and these 
may be considered under the headings of libraries, laboratories, and collections. 

As to the first, I give from the report of the Commissioner of Education a few 
statistics of the principal libraries in the city. Some of these libraries, such as those 
of the Patent Office, the Bureau of Education, the Geological Survey, the Naval 
Observatory, the Museum of Hygiene, the Surgeon-General's Office, and the depart- 
ments of State and Agriculture, as well as the Toner and other special collections 
in the Library of Congress, are particularly valuable by reason of their strength in 
certain definite lines of research. 



Libraries in Washington. 



Volumes. 

American Medical Association 7, 000 

Bar Association (subscription) 4, 500 

Bureau of Education 17, 500 

Columbian University 7, 000 

Department of Agriculture ... 18, 000 

Department of Justice 20, 000 

Department qt State 22, 625 

Department of the Interior. . . 8, 000 

Gonzaga College 10, 000 

House of Representatives 125, 000 

Howard University 1 1 , 509 

Light-House Board 2,711 

Museum of Hygiene 13, 000 

Navy Department 17, 000 

Patent Office 50, 000 

Signal Office 10,540 

Surgeon-General' s Office 76, 733 



Treasury Department 

United States Geological Sur- 
vey 

Coast Survey 

Congress 

Hydrographic Office 

Naval Observatory 

Senate 

War Department 

Georgetown College 



Volumes. 
18, 000 

17, 255 

4,500 

565, 134 

2,306 

12, 000 

30, 000 

17, 500 

35, 000 



Total 1,122,813 

Pamphlets. 

Bureau of Education 45, 000 

Library of Congress 191, 000 



Total 236,000 



Here we have, then, a library of over 1,000,000 volumes selected by the foremost 
specialists in every field, easily accessible, maintained, enlarged, and administered 
without any cost to the proposed university, and ready for its work at the moment 
of its organization. All that would be needed by such an institution would be a 
small library for reference, similar to that so admirably planned for Johns Hopkins 
University by President Gilman. 

Next, as to laboratories. For chemical work the Government has at least eight: 
The laboratories of the United States Geological Survey, of the Agricultural Department, 
of the Surgeon-General's Ofiice, of the Navy Department, of the Museum of Hygiene, 
of the Internal -Revenue Bureau, of the Mint Bureau, and of the District chemist. 
There is alsoasmall chemical laboratory in the Smithsonian Institution which wasorigi- 
nally organized for work connected with the Fish Commission. Most of these are 
organized for special work in testing materials or supplies, but the laboratories of the 
Geological Survey and of the Agricultural Department are necessarily so carried on 
that a large amount of work is also done in the line of purely scientific investigation. 
In the laboratory of the Geological Survey the work mainly relates to the chemistry 
of the mineral kingdom, while in the laboratory of the Agricultural Department 
investigations are undertaken relative to agricultural problems and to various adul- 
terations of articles of food. In both much research is conducted which results in 
the improvement of analytical methods. In the physical laboratory of the Geolog- 
ical Survey, which is immediately connected with the chemical laboratory forming 
part of the same division, physical investigations relating to geological problems are 
actively carried forward; for example, the physical constants of rocks are determined, 
and investigations have been made upon sedimentation. Here, too, researches have 



52 UNIVEESITY OF THE UISTITED STATES. 

been made on the phj^sical properties of iron and steel, on the formation of alloys, 
and on methods of measuring high temperatures. These different chemical labora- 
tories of the Government, including the force of chemists in the Patent Office, rep- 
resent at least forty skilled men actively engaged in chemical work. 

Besides this, within an hour's distance northward are the chemical, physical, and 
biological laboratories of Johns Hopkins University, in which advanced students 
could make frequent observations, or even take steady work. A little more distant 
southward is the University of Virginia, which could easily be brought into relations 
with the proposed institution in a manner profitable to both; and at various points 
more or less remote are institutions which would doubtless afford some supplemen- 
tary facilities, and among them is the Naval Academy at Annapolis. 

Here, then, are laboratories affording the most admirable opportunities for just 
those kinds of advanced investigations, methods, and processes with v/hich a uni- 
versity, as distinguished from an intermediate college, has to do. The proposed 
university should indeed have large general laboratories and probably some special 
laboratories of its own, over which it could have complete control; but these outly- 
ing special laboratories, in which the most advanced work is constantly conducted 
by leading specialists, would give a university character to the work such as could 
hardly be attained at any other point in the'countrj^ 

I come next to illustrative collections. The chief of these are to be found in the 
National Museum; and these, already great, and in some respects unequaled in the 
world, are steadily increasing. They embrace the results of man's activity in almost 
every form in which such results admit of representative exhibition. To enumerate 
them would be impossible in any space which I could claim, and useless in view of 
their rapid increase. Under the existing laws the collections made by the Geological 
and other surveys are deposited in the National Museum after they have been used 
by the organizations collecting them. This has been the practice for years, so that 
there are already gathered a number of very valuable special collections, such as 
those of the Fortieth Parallel Expedition, the "Washoe Expedition, and others, 
besides an immense amount of ethnological, archaeological , pala?ontological, and 
mineralogical material. 

The palseontological collections of invertebrate fossils are extensive, and embrace 
all the material collected by the various Government expeditions in the far West, and 
also large collections made by the Geological Survey in the East to illustrate the study 
of stratigraphic geology in connection with the faunas. The collection of vertebrate 
fossils is at present in charge of Professor Marsh, of Yale University, but will ulti- 
mately be deposited in the National Museum. It is of such interest that some of the 
foremost naturalists of Europe have made a study of it their main object in visiting our 
country. The collection illustrating palfeobotany is the largest and most complete in 
the United States; this may also be said of the collections from the Cambrian system 
and the Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks. 

The mineral collection of the National Museum may be divided into three parts: 
First, a large exhibition series; secondly, a reserve or study series; and, thirdly, a. 
duplicate series which is used for purposes of exchange. Incidental to the mineral 
collection there are two special collections — one a collection of gems and ornamental 
stones, mostly cut and polished; the other a collection of meteorites, which is already 
one of the larger collections of the world. The policy of the mineral department i& 
to encourage research, and to well-accredited students are always given opportunities^ 
for work and assistance as far as possible. Immediately related to the mineral col- 
lection is the collection of rocks and building stones, the geological collection proper, 
and the metallurgical collection, consisting mainly of ores, fuels, furnace models, and 
metallurgical products generally. Taken altogether, the facilities for mineralogical 
investigation in Washington M'ill compare favorably with the opportunites offered 
anywhere in the world. All these collections are increasing with very great rapidity.. 



UlSriVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 53 

But these are by no means all the stores of material for illustration and research 
available for university purposes at Washington. There must also be named the 
museum of the Agricultural Department, which affords fine opportunities for study, 
some of the collections being unusually complete and well arranged. So, too, the 
large botanical conservatory, generally supposed to have as its sole object the supply 
of bouquets to enterprising Congressmen, already carries on the more serious busi- 
ness of botanical research, and would do so to still higher and broader purpose were 
a university to organize study in connection with it. 

Next may be named the United States Fish Commission, which maintains its 
principal station at Washington, where subjects through great ranges in zoology may 
be well studied. As for the supplementary facilities offered for summer work in the 
Government establishment at Woods Hole, they are simply the most complete in the 
world. Few Americans know how creditable this work has been, and how useful to 
their country. It was once made the duty of the writer of this article to conduct the 
late Emperor Frederick of Germany through some of the collections made by this 
Commission. He was a competent judge. His exclamations of admiration were 
unaffected and hearty, and it was no surprise that at the close of the Berlin Fish- 
eries Exposition the first great j^rize should have been awarded to Prof. Spencer 
Baird, who had organized this service. 

The collection of models in the Patent Office also presents great opportunities for 
those who would study the development of the vast industries represented in it. 
The collections at the IMuseum of Hygiene and the Surgeon-General's Office are noted 
throughout the world as in all respects precious, and in some respects unique. And, 
finally, the Corcoran Gallery, though only in its beginning, can easily be made to 
stimulate study in art, and to afford facilities for carrying on such study. 

I have by no means exhausted the list of collections, but what is already given will 
serve to show that few universities in Europe, and none in America, have such a 
mass of the best material for the training of students and for the advancement of 
knowledge as one which might be created at our national capital, and brought into 
proper relations with what already exists there. 

I come next to the observatories. Under this head are several centers of scientific 
activity, but I will name only one, the Naval Observatory. It is one of the foremost 
in the world, and connected with it is a chart and chronometer depot, an extensive 
collection of instruments used in taking astronomical photographs, and a magnetic 
observatory, besides the celebrated telescope and transit instruments used in carry- 
ing on its ordinary work. The jaroposed university would, indeed, need an observ- 
atory of moderate size for training purposes, but in the work of research by young 
astronomers likely to be of use and honor to the nation all this ample provision would 
be immediately available. 

So much for the literary, scientific, and technical side of the university; and a brief 
exhibit may now be made of the opportunities W^ashington offers to the students of 
what were formerly known as the "learned professions" — to the students of law, 
medicine, and I might add with Faust, "und leider auch Theologie," had other 
religious bodies in the country shown anything of the foresight and zeal exhibited in 
the preparations for the theological school of the new Roman Catholic University. 

Among the facilities for the study of medicine the city offers at least six hospitals, 
at each of which clinical instruction is given; and one of these, Providence Hospital, 
has over 300 beds. The Army Medical Museum is declared by a competent and 
unprejudiced authority to comprise the most complete collection of recent patholog- 
ical specimens in the world, and is open to the public every week day. In the 
National Museum there is the most complete collection in the country illustrating 
the materia medica of the United States pharmacopceia and that of foreign countries, 
and the whole is arranged and classified so as to be immediately available for studies. 
The immense library of the Surgeon-General's office is also available for the use of 
medical students and practitioners. 



54 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

For a university law department Washington presents almost unparalleled advan- 
tages. The Law Library of Congress contains over 50,000 carefullj^ selected volumes, 
exclusively legal in character, and provision is already made for the accommodation 
of students in using it. The State Department has, by a wise policy steadily pursued 
during many years past, accumulated the most valuable collection of works relating 
to international law in the Western Hemisphere — a collection undoubtedly superior 
even to that of All Soul's College, Oxford, which is becoming one of the boasts of 
that university. 

. In the Supreme Court of the LTnited States and in the Court of Claims the foremost 
American lawyers may be heard making arguments on the most important questions. 
The supreme court of the District has the common-law, equity, and probate jurisdic- 
tion of a State court, besides that of the circuit and district courts of the United 
States. The absence of any code, even of one governing procedure, encourages the 
study of the common law in exceptional simplicitj'', and already sundry institutions, 
notably the Columbian University, have endeavored to bring these advantages to 
bear upon the country; but these institutions, though embracing men of high schol- 
arship and ability, are greatly hampered by the want of the means necessary to 
provide full university instruction. 

So much for the assemblage at Washington of men, books, apparatus, and material 
necessary for the highest university instruction. I come now to the two questions: 
What shall the proposed university be? How shall it be organized? I will suppose 
that some great millionaii-e or combination of millionaires has given the five or six 
millions required. Certainly such a supposition is by no means beyond the possi- 
bilities, in view of the sums, even larger than these, either given or to be given by 
some of our wealthy fellow-citizens for similar purposes. 

The first duty will naturally be to choose with care a board of trustees, and these 
should be men who will give the institution a national but not a partisan or sectarian 
character. There should be, as a fundamental feature of its organic law, a provision 
that persons of every party, and of every religious sect or of no religious sect, and of 
every nationality, shall be equallj'^ eligible to all offices and positions of every sort in 
the institution, and that neither for service in the board of trustees, nor for service 
in the faculty, nor for any other service in the university, shall any candidate be 
accepted or rejected on account of any political or religious views which he may or 
may not entertain. 

The board of trustees will have to erect necessary buildings, which should be in some 
central position, giving ample space. Having visited almost every university of any 
note either in our own country or in Europe, I may be allowed to say that the new uni- 
versity buildings at Strasburg and Zurich will probably afford more valuable hints and 
suggestions than any others. But buildings should not be undertaken until a con- 
siderable faculty has been called together who can suggest, advise, plan, and super- 
intend the accommodations necessary for their respective departments. 

Here comes in the most important duty imposed upon the trustees — the calling 
together of the faculty. This body should be made up of men who lead the country 
ip power to investigate and teach. There should be resident professors, nonresident 
professors, associate and assistant professors, instructors, and lecturers, with such 
other grades as experience may show to be required. With suitable means within 
the control of the trustees, all the foremost universities of the world might be laid 
under contribution for courses of lectures by men standing at the heads of their 
respective departments of knowledge. 

With all the vast material for investigation and illustration at its disposal, the pro- 
posed university will be no better than its faculty, and its income should be so used 
as to secure the men who either have taken or may fairly be expected to take a fore- 
most place in their respective fields. Of these the resident professors will, in the 
lecture rooms, laboratories, libraries, and collections, direct, lead, and organize 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 55 

instruction and research in the highest sense; the nonresident professors and lec- 
turers will give stimulus, suggestion, and force to the work. 

As a rule, I would have a reasonable fee charged, but I would have the experi- 
ment tried of competitions in various parts of the United States, the persons passing 
the best examinations being entitled to scholarships giving them free instruction. 
In spite of the present outcry in England against competitive examinations at the 
universities, they have in this country succeeded well. They need not be carried to 
the pedantic extreme which has disgusted so many people with them in the Old 
World. Practical common sense will easily obviate the difficulties complained of. 
I would also have elections to fellowships made upon the basis of merit, as is at 
present done in various American universities; indeed, I would gladly see grafted 
upon this teaching university the system of fellowships and scholarships sketched 
out in the first of this series of articles. 

One point as regards elections to trusteeships, professorships, and fellowships should 
be carefully guarded. All such elections and appointments should be made by ballot. 
A provision for this should form part of the organic law of the university. In this 
way alone, as experience has shown in some of our existing institutions of learning, 
can a firm and lasting barrier be erected against overweening personal influence. 

I fully believe that within a few years such a university would be one of the most 
useful and flourishing in the world, and that it might fairly expect finally to equal 
in the numbers and character of its students, as well as in the attainments and rep- 
utations of its faculty, the University of Berlin — the highest point which any uni- 
versity organization has yet reached. 

It is true that objections will be raised; and, first, that such an institution will 
draw somewhat from those now existing. I grant that at first this may be the case 
in some slight degree, but would stake everything on the belief that within a few 
years every other college or university in the nation which has any real vitality will 
be strengthened by it. It will be one of the three or four universities in the coun- 
try to set high standards of qualification and attainment; it will send back strong 
men into the faculties of the existing universities; it will be a perpetual incentive to 
the best men in the existing institutions throughout the country to do their best in 
view of possible promotion to lectureships and professorships at Washington. 

It will also doubtless be said that Washington, as a great capital, is not the best 
place for young men; that there are too many distractions and temptations. This is 
true as regards what may be properly called collegiate or intermediate students, but 
not true regarding men ready to undertake university work. This is proved by the 
fact that while the ordinary undergraduate work thrives best at institutions in small 
towns, the advanced and post-graduate woi'k, such as is undertaken in schools of 
technology, of mining, of mechanical, civil, and electrical engineering, of architec- 
ture, and of law, medicine, and theology, is equally well carried on in our great 
cities, as is already shown at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, 
and New Orleans. 

Again, it may be said that Washington has disadvantages of climate. To this I 
answer that they are no greater than those at very many other seats of learning. By 
pursuing the plan of Johns Hopkins University, the extreme hot weather can easily 
be avoided. There is, indeed, an impression that Washington is hopelessly malari- 
ous, but it is certainly more favorably situated in this respect than English Cam- 
bridge, in its region of fens, or than at least two of the most important colleges at 
Oxford, situated close to the unctuous, slimj-, reeking banks of the Isis; or than the 
University of Berlin, in an ancient marsh, and in the immediate neighborhood of 
the dark and sluggish Spree. I have observed that the talk about the malarial char- 
acter of Washington is periodical, and comes usually when newspaper correspondents 
and subordinates in the public service think it about time to enjoy leave of absence. 
As a matter of fact, the statistics of the health department, which are very carefully 



56 UNIVERSITY OF THE IHSTITED STATES. 

kept, and which present comparisons of the mortality rates in Washington and other 
cities, clearly show our National Capital to be an unusually healthy city. About 
one-third of the population are negroes, and among these is generally about 50 per cent 
of the mortality. The mortality rate among the white population is low. There is 
no need to place the university buildings in any particularly insalubrious spot, or 
under any especially unsanitary conditions, like those in which we compel the Presi: 
dent of the United States to live. And even here matters are becoming better; 
the Potomac improvement, with the filling in of the miasmatic region adjacent to 
the White House grounds, will give even the President healthy surroundings. 

There is no need to dwell upon all the advantages accruing to the country from 
such an organization; most of them can be easily seen; but I will touch on one which 
might, at first sight, not be thought of. The city of Washington is rapidly becoming 
a great metropolis; it is developing the atmosphere Avhich is to give character to the 
executive, the judicial, and especially the legislative business of the nation. What 
shall that atmosphere be? Shall it be made by luxurious millionaires, anxious only 
for new fields in which to display their wealth? Shall it be an atmosphere of riotous 
living, without one thought of better things? Shall it be redolent merely of political 
scheming and stock-jobbing by day, and of canvas-backs and terrapin by night? 
In such a future, legislative cynicism and corruption, and eventually, perhaps, execu- 
tive and judicial cynicism and corruption, wall be of course; for they will present the 
only means by which men can adjust their lungs to the moral atmosphere. Shall it 
not rather be a capital where, with the higher satisfaction and graces of civilized liv- 
ing, there shall be an atmosphere of thought upon the highest subjects, of work in 
the most worthy fields, of devotion to the noblest aims ? Such an atmosjihere a great 
university with the men and work involved in it would tend to develop, and in it 
demagogism would wither and corruption lose the main element of its suj^port. We 
may well suppose that some considerations of this kind passed through the mind of 
him whose great name our capital bears, and that these were among the thoughts 
which prompted him to urge again and again the founding there of a university 
worthy of the nation. 

Andrew D. White. 

[Extract of letter from the Hon. Andrew D. White, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., Angust 28, 1900.] 

My general impression is that the best hope — and indeed almost the only hope — 
for such a university is in some one of our great public-spirited millionaires who may 
prove far-sighted enough to see that here is the best chance for rendering a great 
service to his countr)' and immortalizing himself likely to be presented to any man 
during the next hundred years. 



THE URGENT NEED OF A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY. 

By President David Starr Jordan, of Leland Stanford Junior University. 

[From the Fornin for January, 1897.1 

The most important event in the history of modern Germany has been the founda- 
tion of the University of Berlin. The unification of the German Empire was a mat- 
ter of tremendous significance; the success of the German armies has widened the 
sphere of Teutonic influence; the recently adopted uniform code of laws marks the 
progress of national development; but more important as an epoch-making event has 
been the building of a great center of human wisdom in Germany's chief capital. 
The influence of the University of Berlin not only shows itself in Germany's preem- 
inence in scientific investigation and the Avide diffusion of liberal culture, but is felt 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 57 

in every branch of industrial effort. There is no trade or handiwork in Germany 
that has not been made more effective by the practical application of investigations 
made in the great miiversity. There is no line of effort in which men have not 
become wiser through the influence of the noble minds brought together to form 
this institution. 

Nor is the influence of this university and its noble sister institutions confined 
solely or even mainl}^ within the boundaries of Germany. The great revival of 
learning in the United States, which has shown itself in the growth of universities, in 
the rise of the spirit of investigation, and in the realization of the value of truth, 
can be traced in large degree to Germanic influences. These influences have not 
come to us through German immigration, or the presence of German scholars among 
us, but through the experience of American scholars in Germany. If it be true, 
as Mr. Jame:^ Br3fce says, that "of all institutions in America," the universities 
"have the best promise for the future," we have Germany to thank for this. It is, 
however, no abstract Germany that we may thank, but a concrete fact. It is the 
existence in Germany of universities, strong, effective, and free; and most notable 
among these is the youngest of their number, the University of Berlin. 

This century has seen some epoch-making events in the history of our Republic. 
The war of Union, the abolition of slavery — one and the same in essence — mark the 
same movement of the Republic from medisevalism to civilization. But the great 
deed of the century still remains undone. Ever since the time of Washington our 
lawgivers have contemplated building a university at the nation's capital. They 
have planned a university that shall be national and American, as the universities 
of Berlin and Leipzig are national and German ; a university that shall be the cul- 
mination of our public-school system, and that by its vivifying influence shall quicken 
the pulse of every part of that system. For more than a century wise men have 
kept this project in mind. For more than a century wise men have seen the j^ressing 
need of its accomplishment. For more than a contury, however, the exigencies of 
politics or the indifference of political managers have caused postponement of its 
final consideration. 

Meanwhile, about the national capital, by the very necessities of the case, the 
basal material of a great university has been already gathered. The National 
Museum and the Army Medical Museum far exceed all other similar collections in 
America in the amount and value of the material gathered for investigation. The 
Library of Congress is our greatest public library, and, in the nature of things, it 
will always remain so. The Geological Survey, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and 
the biological divisions of the Department of Agriculture are constantly engaged in 
investigations of the highest order, conducted by men of university training, and 
possible to no other men. The United States Fish Commission is the source of a vast 
part of our knowledge of the sea and of sea life. Besides these there are many other 
bureaus and divisions in which scientific inquiry constitutes the daily routine. The 
work of these departments should be made useful, not only in its conclusions, but in 
its methods. A university consists of investigators teaching. All that the national 
capital needs to make a great university of it is that a body of real scholars should 
be maintained to train other men in the work now so worthily carried on. To do 
this M'ould be to bring to America, in large degree, all that American scholars now 
seek in the University of Berlin. Students will come wherever opportunities for 
investigation are given. No standards of work can be made too high, for the 
severest standards attract rather than repel men who are worth educating. 

It should not be necessary to bring arguments to show the need of a national 
university in the United States. A university, we may remember, is not a school 
for boys and girls, where the elements of a liberal education are taught to those who 
have yet to enter upon the serious work of life. A university is not a school main- 
tained for the glory or the extension of any denominational body. In its very 



58 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

definition a university must be above and beyond all sectarianism. Truth is as 
broad as the universe, and no one can search for it between any artificial boundaries. 
As well ask for Presbyterian sunshine or ^ Baptist June as to speak of a denomina- 
tional university. 

It is said that in America we have already some four hundred colleges and univer- 
sities, and that, therefore, we do not need any more. Quite true; we need no more 
like these. The splendid achievement and noble promise of our universities, to which 
Mr. Bryce calls attention, is not due to their number. Many of them do not show 
this promise. If such were to close their doors to-morrow, education would be the 
gainer by it. Many of the four hundred, as we well know, are not universities in fact 
or in spirit. Most of the work done in the best of them is that of the German gym- 
nasium or preparatory school. The worst of them, would in Germany be closed by 
the police. But in a certain number of the strongest and freest the genuine univer- 
sity spirit is found in the highest degree. For more of these good ones there is a 
crying demand. Their very promise is a reason why we should do everything possible 
to make them better. A school can rise to be a university only when its teachers are 
university men; when they are men trained to face directly and effectively the prob- 
lems of nature and of life. To give such training is the work of the university. In an 
educational system each grade looks to the one next higher for help and inspiration. 
The place at the head of our system is now held by the universities of a foreign land. 

It is not the needs of the District of Columbia which are to be met by a university 
of the United States. The local needs are well supplied already. It is the need of 
the nation. And not of the nation alone, but of the world. A great university in 
America would be a school for the study of civic freedom. A great university at the 
capital of the Republic would attract the free-minded of all the earth. It would 
draw men of all lands to the study of democracy. It would tend to make the work- 
ings of democracy worthy of respectful study. The New World has its lessons as well 
as the Old; and its material for teaching these lessons should be made equally ade- 
quate. Mold and ruin are not necessary to a university; nor are traditions and 
precedents essential to its effectiveness. The greatest of Europe's universities is one 
of her very youngest. Much of the greatness of the University of Berlin is due to 
her escape from the dead hands of the past. It is in this release that the great 
promise of the American university lies. Oxford and Cambridge are still choked by 
the dust of their own traditions. Because this is so men have doubted whether 
England has to-day any universities at all. 

The national university should not be an institution of general education, with its 
rules and regulations, college classes, good-fellowship, and football team. It should 
be the place for the training of investigators and of men of action. It should admit 
no student who is under age or who has not a definite purpose to accomplish. It 
has no time or strength to spend in laying the foundations for education. Its func- 
tion lies not in the conduct of examinations, or the granting of academic degrees. It 
is not essential that it should give professional training of any kind, though that 
would be desirable. It should have the same relation to Harvard and Columbia and 
Johns Hopkins that Berlin University now holds. It should fill, with noble adequacy, 
the place which the graduate departments of our real universities partially occupy. 
In doing so it would furnish a stimulus which would strengthen all similar work 
throughout the land. 

Graduate work has yet to be taken seriously by American universities. Their 
teachers have carried on original research, if at all, in hours stolen from their daily 
tasks of plodding and prodding. The graduate student has been allowed to shift for 
himself; and he has been encouraged to select a university not for the training it 
offers, but because of some bonus in the form of scholarships. The "free-lunch" 
inducement to investigation will never build up a university. Fellowships can never 
take the place of men or books or apparatus in developing the university spirit. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 59 

Great libraries and adequate facilities for work are costly; and no American institu- 
tion has yet gathered together such essentials for university work as already exist at 
Washington. 

If a national university is a national need, it is the duty of the people to meet and 
satisfy it. No other power can do it. As well ask wealthy manufacturers or wealthy 
churches to endow and support our supreme court of law as to endow and support 
our supreme university. They can not do it; they will not do it; and, as free men, 
we would not have them do it if they would. As to this, Mr. John W. Hoyt — a man 
who for years has nobly led in the effort to establish a national university — uses these 
strong vi^ords: 

"What should the nation undertake to accomplish? What the citizen has not 
done and can not do, is our answer. The citizen may create a very worthy and 
quite important private institution, some of which may be named to-day, but no citi- 
zen, however great his fortune, and no single Commonwealth, much less any sectarian 
organization or any combination of these, can create an institution that shall be so 
wholly free from bias of any and every sort; that shall complete our public educa- 
tional system; that shall exert so nationalizing and harmonizing an influence upon 
all portions of our great country ; that shall be always ready to meet the demands 
of the Government for service in whatsoever field, and that shall at the same time 
secure to the United States an acknowledged ascendency in the ever-widening field 
of intellectual activity." 

A university bears the stamp of its origin. Whatever its origin, the university 
ennobles it. But a national university must spring from the people. It must be 
paid for by them; and it must have its final justification in the upbuilding of the 
nation. Whatever institutions the people need the people nmst create and control. 
That this can be done wisely is no matter of theory. With all their mistakes and 
crudities the State universities of this country constitute the most hopeful feature in 
our whole educational system. Doubtless the weakness and folly of the people have 
affected them injuriously from time to time. This is not the point. We must think 
of the effect they have had in curing the people of weakness and folly. "The his- 
tory of Iowa," says Dr. Angell, "is the history of her State university." The same 
thing is grandly and emphatically true of Dr. Angell's own State of Michigan. In 
its degree the history of every State is molded by its highest institution of learning. 

As I have had occasion to say once before — 

"Many trials are made in popular government; many blunders are committed 
before any given piece of work falls into the hands of competent men. But mistakes 
are a source of education. Sooner or later the right man will be found and the right 
management of a public institution will justify itself. What is well done can never 
be wholly undone. In the long run, few institutions are less subject to partisan 
influence than a State university. When the foul grip of the spoilsman is once 
unloosed it can never be restored. In the evil days which befell the politics of Vir- 
ginia, when the fair name of the State was traded upon by spoilsmen of every party, 
of every degree, the one thing in the State never touched by them was the honor of 
the University of Virginia. And amid all the scandal and disorder which followed 
our civil war, what finger of evil has been laid on the Smithsonian Institution or the 
Military Academy at West Point? On that which is intended for no venal end the 
people will tolerate no venal domination. In due time the management of every 
public institution will be abreast of the highest popular opinion. Sooner or later the 
wise man leads; for his ability to lead is at once the test and proof of his wisdom." 

Some of the half-hearted friends of the national universit}^ have been fearful lest 
partisan influence should control it. They fear lest it should become a prey to the 
evils which have disgraced our civil service; lest the shadow of the boss should 
darken the doors of the university with the paralyzing influence which it has exerted 
on the employees of the custom-house. I believe this to be a groundless fear. All 



60 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

plans for a national university provide for a nonpartisan board of control. Its 
ex officio members are to be chosen from the ablest jurists and wisest men of science 
the country can claim. Such a board now controls the National Museum and the 
Smithsonian Institution; and ho accusation of partisanship or favoritism has ever 
been brought against it. 

A university could not be otherwise than free. Its faculty could respond only to 
the noblest influences. No man can receive an appointment of national prominence 
in the face of glaring unfitness, and each man chosen to a position in a national 
faculty would feel the honor of his profession at stake in repelling all degrading 
influences. Even if occasionally an unwise appointment should be made, the action 
would correct itself. To a university men and women go for individual help and 
training. A pretender in a university could not give such help. His presence is 
soon detected by his fellows and by his students. The latter he could not harm, for 
he could not retain them. By the side of his fellows he could not maintain himself. 
No body of men is so insusceptible to coercion or contamination as a university faculty. 
A scholar is a free man. He has always been so. He will always remain so. The 
danger that a body of men such as constitute the university faculty of Harvard or 
Yale or Columbia or Princeton or Chicago or Cornell would be contaminated by 
Washington politics is sheer nonsense. Such an idea has no basis in experience. It 
is urged only for lack of better arguments. Such opposition to the national university 
as has yet appeared seems to rest on distrust of democracy itself or on concealed 
hatred of secular education. To one or the other of these influences can be traced 
nearly ever}" assault yet made on any part of the system of popular education. 

The fear that the university would be contaminated by political associations is 
therefore groundless. But what about the hope from such associations? An edu- 
cated politician may become a statesman, and we may look for tremendous results 
for good from the presence of trained economists and historians and jurists at the 
national capital. It Vv'ould in itself be an influence for good legislation and good 
administration greater than any that we know. As President Cleveland said at 
Princeton University on the occasion of its sesquicentennial celebration — 

' ' The worth of educated men in purifying and steadying popular sentiment would 
be more useful if it were less spasmodic and occasional. * * * Our people readily 
listen to those who exhibit a real fellowship and friendly and habitual interest in all 
that concerns the common welfare. Such a condition of intimacy would not only 
improve the general political atmosphere, but would vastly increase the influence of 
our universities in their efforts to prevent popular delusions or correct them before 
they reach an acute or dangerous stage." 

The scholars and investigators now maintained at Washington exert an influence 
far beyond that of their official position. If the Harvard faculty and its graduate 
students met on the Capitol Hill, if their influence were in the departmental work, 
and their presence in social life, Washington would become a changed city. To the 
force of high training and academic self-devotion is to be traced the immense influence 
exerted in Washington by Joseph Henry, Spencer F. Baird, and G. Brown Goode. 
Of such men as these are universities made. AVhen such men are systematically 
selected from our body of university professors and brought to Washington and 
allowed to surround themselves with like men of the next generation, we shall 
indeed have a national capital. By this means we shall create the best guaranty of 
the perpetuity of our Republic; that it shall not, like the republics of old, "go down 
in unreason, anarchy, and blood." In the long run, the voters of a nation must be 
led by its wisest men. Their wisdom must become the wisdom of the many, else 
the nation will perish. A university is simply a contrivance for making wisdom 
effective by surrounding wise men with the conditions most favorable for rendering 
wisdom contagious. There is no instrument of political, social, or administrative 
reform to be compared with the influence of a national university. 

David Starr Jordan. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 61 

DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT OF THE "COMMITTEE OF 
FIFTEEN" BEFORE THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE 
NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION AT DETROIT, 
MICH., IN JULY, 1901.'^ 

[Reprinted from proceedings of National Educational Association.] 

President James H. Baker, of the University of Colorado, said in substance: There 
appears to be a remarkable relation between the stages of progress and findings of this 
committee and the activities of the promoters of the so-called Washington Memorial 
Institution. I fear that the committee, or members thereof, in their zeal to carry out 
the view embodied in this report have gone far in attempting to predetermine results 
before making the report to the body that appointed them. Under the head "Decla- 
ration of the committee," it is seen that at their first meeting they, by resolution, 
gave their judgment upon the real question referred to them. This resolution was 
given to the country virtually in the name of the National Educational Association 
at a time when a bill for a national university was likelj^ to receive favorable con- 
sideration in Congress. Instead of making their adverse report at the next meeting 
of the council, held some months later in Charleston, they, through their chairman 
and secretary, made an informal report at that time to the effect that they had 
reached no final conclusions and were still investigating with open minds. The 
question as to why, then, they had at their first meeting decided the question at 
issue and immediately made it public was not answered. Just before this 1901 meet- 
ing of the National Educational Association the press of the country not only made 
known that the report is adverse to the scheme of a national university, but also at 
the same time announced that the Washington Memorial Institution was founded. 
Before the report is made we find the names of the chairman and secretary of this 
committee on the board of trustees of said institution. It seems as though it were 
intended to leave the council nothing to do but to accept the report of the committee, 
together with the Washington Memorial Institution. I say again it appears that the 
committee in its zeal has gone far to realize the plan recommended before making 
the report. 

Under the head "Preliminary inquiries" are many interesting subjects of investi- 
gation. We could wish that the results of investigation had been given us as a part 
of the report. 

The "argument for a national university," I think, is not fully and adequately 
stated. Professor Giddings, in his work on sociology, enumerates twelve modes of 
equality necessary to a successful democracy, and he says that only b)^ a thoroughly 
organized and successful public-school system can a sense of the equalities be instilled. 
He might have included State universities and a national university. There are 
problems of democracy, serious ones, and our colleges have not yet done their full 
work in helping solve them. While our State universities have not yet done all 
that should be expected of them, I believe they are doing more than other institutions 
in making citizens who have an interest in the welfare of the State and a ready sym- 
pathy Avith the problems of all classes of society. A national university, in touch 
with the people, supported by public funds, would give the professors and students 
therein a truer sense of true Americanism than could be developed in any other 
relation. It would serve to make the brightest and most progressive minds of the 
world leaders in bringing the people to a consciousness of their ideals. It would 
pay to maintain a national university if for no other purpose than to give our repre- 
sentatives in Congress other interests than commercialism and politics. In founding 

* It is a matter of regret that the report of this discussion does not include all of the 
speakers. — Editor. ] 



62 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

and upbuilding a national university they would devote themselves to an ideal inter- 
est ideally. Its idealizing influence would be at the center of the governmental 
life of democracy. Its effect upon the nation in the course of a century, I believe, 
would be marvelous. Scholars assembled in a national institution of learning from 
all parts of the country and from all countries in the world would carry to the cor- 
ners of the earth American ideas, ideas purified by their very means. Our statue of 
Liberty Enlightening the World will then have a true significance. 

The above are two additional arguments for a national university. Moreover, I 
am confident the great mass of public educators and of all thoughtful Americans 
believe in a national university. For more than a hundred years the project has 
been before the people and has been strongly advocated by eminent men. The 
National Educational Association in the seventies unanimously and repeatedly 
affirmed its belief in a national university. There has existed for years a national 
committee of four hundred to promote its establishment. This committee has an 
executive council of 15 members, all eminent men in the history and affairs of the 
nation, who, with remarkable zeal, have devoted time and study and active effort to 
the problem. Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, chairman of the national committee, with 
no other motive than a desire to see an institution that would help the nation, with- 
out hope or desire of reward, has spent years of his time and energy in promoting 
the cause. The pity is that the National Educational Association, in addition to 
expressing its belief in a national university, did not appoint an active committee to 
aid the cause, and provide the committee with necessary funds. 

I wrote recently to all the State universities asking for latest views regarding a 
national university. Up to date I have received 18 replies, and all but 1 are favora- 
ble to the idea of a genuine university, conducted and supported by the Govern- 
ment. One of them says: "I do not urge the establishment of such an institution 
in the interest of the further development of our resources, of more commercialism, 
or for any other material reason, but purely in the interests of common democracy." 
Another says: "If we agree that a higher public-school system is necessary, with its 
early response to public sentiment, we must for that very reason concede that the 
old endowed institutions, which do not rapidly respond to public sentiment, are also 
a necessity to offset too rapid a change of public thought. In other words, both are 
necessary, but the enormous wealth and endowment of the conservative class should 
be met by advancement along the lines of improvement in the responsive class. This 
can be met only through the creation of a national university." 

I also wrote to the members of the executive council. These men are widely 
scattered, and I have heard, directly and indirectly, from only six. Gen. Nelson A. 
Miles writes a very strong argument for the university idea. He also says: "There 
has been no valid room for other than affirmative views, and there can be none." 
Ambassador Andrew D. White affirms his views so often strongly expressed. 
Ex-Minister John A. Kasson offers a convincing affirmative argument. Prof. S. P. 
Langley, heard from only indirectly, raises a practical point, to which I shall refer 
later. Prof. Simon Newconib says: " So far as what I should desire to see, my views 
remain unchanged." He, however, expresses fear of the strength of the opposition. 
Ex-Senator George F. Edmunds writes a full expression of his views. Among other 
things he says: "Such an institution, being purely nonsectarian, and differing in 
this respect from other powerful institutions in Washington and elsewhere, can have 
a vast influence in preserving the fundamental principles of liberty of thought and 
action under equal law. I am confident that when the subject is considered broadly, 
success will easily be obtained, notwithstanding the opposition which, in the main, 
I can not but think, arises from selfish interests." More than one of these men 
express in substance this thought, quoted from one of the letters: "These considera- 
tions make all opposition based on local and denominational selfishness so unworthy 
that they should not for a moment weigh with a patriotic people or their honored 
representatives in the American Congress." Hon. Andrew D. White, in an article 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 63 

first published in 1889, but revised and republished in 1900, offers strong arguments. 
He believes a national university would have an influence in uniting all sections of 
the country; that it would become the equal of Berlin; that it would in every way 
supplement and aid existing universities; that the influence of such an institution 
upon the atmosphere of Washington would be most salutary. President Jordan, of 
Stanford, has an article in the Forum, 1897. He refers to the influence of the University 
of Berlin upon Germany, and urges the need of a national university for the United 
States. Further on he says: " Itis not the needs of the District of Columbia which are to 
be met by a university of the United States. The local needs are well supplied already. 
It is the need of the nation, and not of the nation alone, but of the world. A great 
university in America would be a school for the study of civic freedom. A great uni- 
versity at the capital of the Republic would attract the free-minded of all the earth. 
It would draw men of all lands to the study of democracy. It would tend to make 
the workings of democracy worthy of respectful study." He further says: "If a 
national university is a national need, it is the duty of the people to meet and satisfy 
it. No other power can do it. As well ask wealthy manufacturers or wealthy 
churches to endow and support our supreme court of law as to endow and support 
our supreme university. They can not doit; they will not do it; and, as freemen, we 
would not have them do it if they would. A university bears the stamp of its origin. 
Whatever its origin, the university ennobles it. But a national university must 
spring from the people. It must be paid for by them; and it must have its final 
justification in the upbuilding of the nation. Whatever institutions the people need, 
the people must create and control. That this can be done wisely is no matter of 
theory. With all their mistakes and crudities, the State universities of this country 
constitute the most hopeful feature in our whole educational system. Doubtless the 
weakness and folly of the people have affected them injuriously from time to time. 
This is not the point. We must think of the effect they have had in curing the 
people of weakness and folly. ' ' He closes thus : ' ' There is no instrument of political, 
social, or administrative reform to be compared with the iufiuence of a national 
university." 

As to the "Criticism of this argument," it appears to me not strong. (1) We do 
not emphasize the argument from analogy. The case rests on its independent merits. 
(2) Our proposition is that a national university shall be more adequate than any 
other can possibly be made. (3) Anyone acquainted with Washington's wi'i tings 
upon the subject knows that the reason emphasized in paragraph 3 is not the only 
one he urged. Moreover, since his day the reasons for a national university have 
expanded and are more clearly seen. (4) We also desire to take full advantage of 
the opportunities at Washington, but we shall try to show that the scheme advo- 
cated by the committee is not to be considered as a substitute for a national uni- 
versity. 

In passing I wish to note that without question infiuences representing some 
religious denominations are actively hostile to a national university. While I stand 
finnly for all that the churches truly represent, I feel keenly that this mistaken zeal 
is not to be tolerated. 

Noting the history of the George Washington Memorial Association, it appears 
that it has been captured by those opposed to the university idea, together with its 
funds raised "to advance and secure the establishment in Washington, D. C, of a 
university," etc. 

Under "Characteristics of the institution proposed" we see that the memorial 
institution is to be ' ' independent of Government support or control. ' ' In other words, 
another private institution has been founded in Washington with which we, of 
course, have nothing to do. Should the Government allow its facilities to be used 
under the advice of a private body not responsible to the Government? 

Now we come to the scheme of the Washington Memorial Institution. By the 



64 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

report of the committee there are 272 units of possibility for special investigation 
in the Government institutions and Departments in Washington, provided each 
student takes but one subject. If each takes two or three subjects, the number 
of students is reduced to about 100. A member of the committee has said there are 
not opportunities for 50 students. The scheme of the Washington Memorial Institu- 
tion is not adequate. I believe it is not intended seriously, except by the enemies 
of a national university, to prevent its establishment. Professor Langley, of the 
Smithsonian, points out that the laboratories in the Government institutions and 
Departments are not adequate for a large number of student investigators, neither 
could time be given to needful instruction. We can draw the inference that there 
must be a genuine university, with professors and full equipment, before students 
can make use of the splendid opportunities in Washington owned by the Govern- 
ernment. This memorial institution plan is hardly the shadow of a shadow of a 
university. The problem remains where it was before, to be solved by the friends, 
in this association and elsewhere, of a national university. I mean by a national uni- 
versity a great post-graduate institution — a greater than Berlin — wonderfully equipped, 
with professors representing the culture and progress of the world, with thousands 
of graduate students from all parts of the country and from all countries of the world, 
standing as an ideal interest of Congress and of the American people, in touch with 
the people, and helping the people come to a consciousness of the true ideals of 
democracy, and spreading those ideals over the civilized world. And they offer us 
this pitiful substitute! 

With the opposition naturally stand a few great universities and a few religious 
denominations. President Gilman, in his article on a national university, is very 
frank, and asks what Columbia and Harvard and Yale and Johns Hopkins will say 
to the idea of a university that might attract some of their best professors and stu- 
dents? We are told that the scheme is visionary. The American Republic needs a 
true and far-reaching vision of greater things than average politics gives us. We are 
told that there are difficulties in the way. Shades of William Lloyd Garrison and 
Wendell Phillips! When shall the Anglo-Saxon American people be told that they 
are not to undertake a right thing because there are difficulties in the way? 

I hope this council of education will affirm its belief in a national university. I 
hope further that in the business meeting of the active members of the general asso- 
ciation a resolution will be passed reaffirming belief in a national university, and 
that a committee will be appointed, with funds for necessary publications, to aid the 
committee of four hundred in securing its foundation. 

This is not a question of the interest of a few great universities or of a few great 
religious denominations, but it is a question of fostering our public-school system, our 
public universities, all colleges and universities of the better class, democracy, progress, 
American scholarship, national ideals, and America's influence upon the world. 



Ex-Gov. John Wesley Hoyt, chairman of the national university committee. 

Mr. President, Members of the Council: Before entering upon the subject under 
discussion I should, in justice to the cause itself and to the great committee of its 
promoters whom I have the honor to represent, mention the facts personal to myself, 
that being barely convalescent after a long illness and in no condition even to make 
the journey, it was the earnest requests of friends — and these alone — to which I yielded 
so far as finally to accept the invitation; and secondly, that within three days of the 
date of necessary departure I had an alarming prostration by heat. That I am, 
therefore, in a totally unfit condition to appear before you will very certainly make 
itself manifest from beginning to end. 



UNIVP^KSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 65 

Nevertheless, I was sorry to hear from the presiding officer that I can have but a 
very short time, for there is much that I should like to say. 

It had been my purjjose, first of all, to offer a brief summary of what, in the judg- 
ment of the National Educational Association, some years ago, a national university 
should be; second, to remind the members of this great association what it actually 
did a quarter of a century ago toward securing the establishment of such a university; 
third, to present a resume of the efforts of the national university committee and of 
the action of Congress, more especially of the Senate, in this same behalf during the 
last decade; and finally, to offer what, to my mind, are reasons more than sufficient 
why the remarkable report of your committee of fifteen should be emphatically dis- 
approved by this council and by the National Educational Association at large. 

In view of the unexpected limitation, I shall find it difficult to rightly apportion 
the time. 

Let me say at the outset that my own deep interest in the subject of a national 
university came of an inspection of the educational institutions of the Old and the 
New World, made in my capacity as United States commissioner to the Paris Exposi- 
tion of 1867, and by special authority of Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State. It 
was my surprise and mortification upon the conclusion of two years of travel and 
study (in the course of which I visited every university in Europe and America), 
that aroused me to efforts in behalf of university education, in which our deficiencies 
were most marked. 

As many of you will recall, the National Educational Association, at Trenton, 
N. J., in 1869, adopted unanimouslj^ the following resolution: 

^^ Resolved, That, in the opinion of this association, a great American university is 
a leading want of American education, and that, in order to contribute to the early 
establishment of such an institution, the president of this association, acting in con- 
cert with the president of the National Superintendents' Association, is hereby 
requested to appoint a committee, consisting of one member from each of the States, 
and of which Dr. J. W. Hoyt, of Wisconsin, shall be chairman, to take the whole 
matter under consideration, and to make such report thereon, at the next annual 
convention of said associations, as shall seem to be demanded by the interests of 
the country." 

I can now barely mention the facts that the committee's preliminary report, sub- 
mitted at Cleveland in 1870, was in itself unanimous, and was unanimously adopted 
by the association. 

The report submitted at St. Louis in 1871, likewise unanimously adopted by the 
association, among other things, contained an outline of what a national university 
should be. 

At the same time the national committee was made to consist of fewer members, 
and was constituted "a permanent committee," with powers to frame a bill, to send 
the same to members and to leading citizens throughout the country, and, when 
ready, to offer it to Congress and press its passage. 

You are aware that such a bill was finally, in 1872, introduced, and that it was 
unanimously reported by the House Committee on Education, which included many 
eminent members of that body, among them Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts. 
Of the long lapse of time, during which, owing to the protracted absence of members 
of the committee from the country, and the difficulty of enlisting active successors, 
little was done, I will only say that this has been to me a source of unending regret. 

In so far as the National Educational Association is concerned, consolation is found 
in these two facts: First, that upon conclusion of a reply by the chairman of its com- 
mittee in this citj' of Detroit in 1874, to an attack upon the national university move- 
ment by the president of Harvard the year before (during the chairman's al^sence 
from the country), the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the associa- 
tion, and with special emphasis: 

S. Rep. 945 5 



66 UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

^'Resolved, That this association does hereb3'reaffim its former declarations in favor 
of the establishment of a natijnal miiversity, devoted, not to collegiate but to uni- 
versity work, providing higher instruction in all departments of learning, and so 
organized as to secure necessary independence and permanency in its management." 

Secondly, that when the old-time chairman of the aforesaid committee had deter- 
mined to resume his efforts for the university, and repaired to Washington for that 
purpose, ever}^ member of the National Educational Association whom he was able 
to consult as to laying the matter again before that body at its next annual meeting, 
said in substance: "No; the association is sure, absolutely sure already, and will be 
prepared, when the time shall have come for its cooperation — when, as a great and 
influential body, its help is needed. It is better that a new committee be formed, 
including, besides some of the leading members of the association, the strongest 
public men of the countrj' in other fields of activity." 

It was for this reason that the " National Committee to Promote the Establishment 
of the University of the United States" was formed in 1891, and embraces, besides 
the presidents of over two hundred leading colleges and universities and the State 
superintendents of public instruction, statesmen, jurists, scholars, scientists, and 
heads of national organizations enough to swell the number beyond 400. 

You are doubtless familiar with the earnest enlistment of the able ana honored 
Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, in a revival of the national-university 
question, in 1890, by securing the appointment of a special Senate "Committee to 
Establish the University of the United States," with the introduction of a bill, and 
with its reference to said committee. 

You may also know that, after his retirement from the Senate because of serious 
ill health, the said committee was made a "standing committee;" that aunanimous 
report v/as submitted by Senator Edmunds's successor in the chairmanship of said 
committee. Chairman Proctor, of Vermont, in 1893, though too late to secure action; 
and another report, also unanimous, by his successor. Chairman Plunton, of Vir- 
ginia, in 1894, who succeeded in getting the bill ably discussed on the affirmative 
side, thougii not in getting it to a vote, because of interference by the appropriation 
bills and the arrival of the time when, under the rules, a single vote was sufficient 
to prevent further action during that Congress. You may further know of the 
affirmative report afterwards submitted by Chairman Kyle, of South Dakota, in 1896, 
with the inclusion of over 300 letters in support of the measure from some of the 
ablest and most distinguished men of the United States; and that the bill so reported 
was prepared during three protracted sessions of the executive coimcil of the national- 
university committee, the chief justice of the United States presiding and every 
member but one being present. 

That this bill, of which President David Starr Jordan, of Leland Stanford Univer- 
sity, wrote, "Put it through without the change of a punctuation point," failed was 
due to the absence of the chairman of the Senate committee during almost the entire 
last session of the Fifty-fourth Congress (during the session of the South Dakota leg- 
islature), and to the natural reluctance of Senators John Sherman, Frye, and other 
members of the committee to take his place while daily expecting his return, espe- 
cially since, meanwhile, a minority report (though brief, weak, and ill supported) 
had been offei'ed. 

******* 

The record of national-university efforts in the Senate puts it beyond question that, 
while the Senate itself has dealt most liberally and handsomely with the university 
question, there have been delays on the part of chairmen of the Senate committee, 
especially the last one — delays, too, in one case, which many friends of our measure 
insist have a mysterious connection with those of the committee of fifteen, but which 
I shall myself not here attempt to explain otherwise than to note that the actual 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 67 

work of said committee of fifteen may have devolved upon a very small number of 
its members. 

As for the report of the committtee on a national university now under discussion, 
I regret to speak of it, for there are attached to it the signatures of distinguished men 
whom I have long highlj^ respected, some of them members of the national-university 
committee. But, on the other hand, it is my necessity to speak of the results of their 
years of labor in terms of the severest condemnation, both on account of the unreason- 
able delays involved and because of the astonishing recommendation with which the 
report concludes — a recommendation which, carefully and dispassionately viewed, 
seems to be nothing less than an attempt to foist upon the National Educational Asso- 
ciation and the country a weak and unworthy substitute for the noble national uni- 
versity to which the association stood so entirely committed in other years, and by 
which I firmly believe it will ever stand. 

Did time permit, I would point out right here how this "memorial" concern is 
practically made up of faults and deficiencies — that it is substantially confined to some 
sort of popular utilization of the scientific resources of the Government at Washington, 
and that even in attempting this they have offered a scheme that must prove a failure. 

I would show likewise how, as a private institution, it must necessarilj^ fail of all 
those great educational, national, and even international ends which Washington, 
Jefferson, and the most illustrious of other of our presidents, as well as a multitude of 
statesmen, scholars, scientists, and practical educators have had in view for a hun- 
dred years. 

And, finally, I would remind you of the affront this "memorial" scheme offers to 
the father of his country. *It was not a narrow, one-sided institute, originated by 
one or more of the worst enemies of the great idea he so cherished, and for whose 
final realization he made the best contribution he could in his last will and testa- 
ment; it was not any such "institution" as we have outlined before us, worked up 
and now in control of national-university deserters, faint-hearted friends, and 
declared opponents of any university likely to become gi'eater than their own, no mat- 
ter what its claims on national and universal grounds; it was nothing of this sort 
that the immortal Washington was so profoundly interested in, as they who devised 
and organized it very well know. And in his great name we who have believed 
with him and have zealously worked for the needed realization of his noble aims 
utterly repudiate, whatever claims its founders may uiake to consideration on national 
and patriotic grounds, this "memorial institution." 

Using the "two minutes more" the chair has kindly granted me, let me declare 
my conviction that the "memorial institution" will prove a faux pas, and that the 
national-university movement will go forward. To friends of the national university 
who from the first -have done little to help, trusting that other of its friends would 
carry it through, with the help of Providence, and who have mistakenly assumed 
that the years of delay in the Senate were a symptom of a decline in interest — to such 
it may seem strange; but as for myself these methods of the enemy, whom it seems 
we were destined to meet, have but increased my determination. With many years 
and many thousands of dollars of my own so freely given to the university cause 
already, I am newly nerved and consecrated. 

I need hardly say to those who have known my past life — and yet, because of base 
intimations in one or two quarters, it may be my duty to say — that a victory fully won 
could by no possibility have anything of personal advantage for me other than a con- 
sciousness of duty done — an elevating sense of labors performed and sacrifices made 
not in vain. For, if already established by act of Congress and to be organized 
to-morrow, the national university would include no official station that I could be 
induced to accept, if offered me, either then or at any time thereafter. As a deter- 
mined promoter of the movement begun by Washington, I have been no less purely 



68 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

patriotic than he. For its realization I shall continue to labor, and am ready to lay 
down my life. With the distinguished President Gilman, of 1895, "I firmly believe 
that a national university will be established in Washington; " and with the eminent 
William R. Harper, president of the University of Chicago, "I have always believed 
in such an institution, and will continue to believe in it. There is everything to be 
gained and nothing to be lost." 



ADDRESS ON A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, BY PRESIDENT 
JOSEPH SWAIN, OF THE INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, 
BEFORE THE INDIANA STATE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, 
1901. 

The establishment of a national university under Government supj^ort at Washing- 
ton has been one of the cherished ideas of many leading American statesmen, 
scholars, and educators for more than a century. The idea is one that appeals to 
the democratic spirit of our nation. Many difficulties have stood in the way of its 
accomplishment. Chief among these have beeh : ( 1 ) The view of some that Con- 
gress did not have sufficient power; (2) the opposition of a few existing institutions 
which were fearful lest a great uuivei'sity in Washington would overshadow and de- 
crease their own relative importance in public esteem; (3) the fear of some that the 
political atmosphere of the capital would be deleterious to the highest interest of a 
national university; (4) that the opposition of others to any scheme which contem- 
plated the use of public money, and (5) the clamor of th^ supporters of many unwise 
schemes, combined with the great pressure from the routine of Congress, made it 
difficult for any cause for education, however meritorious, to be undertaken without 
the unanimous and persistent efforts of the educational people of the country. 

My object at this time is not so much to urge that the teachers of Indiana throw 
their weight and influence on the side of the immediate establishment of a national 
university as it is to ask that they consider carefully this question and whether it 
would not be a positive injury to the cause of education in America to allow the 
friends of these plans to prevail who desire to block the way to the establishment of 
a national university under Government control and forever close the way to the 
realization of those democratic ideas of Washington in the estal>lishment of a national 
university. 

The immense development in the last decade of our country in all phases of our 
national life has brought to the front the demand for men and women with better 
training than ever before, and this in turn has quickened the universities of our land 
and the whole nation has awakened as never before to the great importance of higher 
education and the institutions of higher learning, due doubtless, in part at least, to 
this situation. The council of the National Educational Association in July, 1898, 
authorized the appointment of the "committee of fifteen, the majority of whom 
should be members of the council, who shall investigate the entire subject of the 
establishment of a national university and report to the council." This committee 
was composed of some of the leading educational men of the country. The members 
could not, for different reasons, all attend the meetings for a consideration of the 
question. Neither could the committee all agree on a report that they were all will- 
ing to sign. The question of the establishment of a national university was discussed 
in the department of higher education at Los Angeles in July, 1899. The chairman 
of the committee made an individual report to the council at Charleston July, 1900. 
The views expressed in the report were so out of harmony with those held by the 
majority of the council that they felt that some expression should be given which 
would make it clear to those interested that in accepting the report it should not be 
understood, inferentially or otherwise, that the council accepted the views expressed. 
The following resolution was unanimously adopted by the council : 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 69 

"Resolved, That the personal report of the chairman of the committee on the 
national university be received and the committee continued, and that the council 
defer for the present any expression of opinion concerning the establishment of a 
national university at Washington." 

At the Detroit meeting last July the final report of the committee was presented, 
four men out of the fifteen composing the committee not signing the report. The 
report was adverse to the establishment of a national university. Notably among 
those who did not sign the report were President Angell, of the University of Michi- 
gan, and Professor James, of the University of Chicago. The following resolution 
represented the attitude of the majority of the committee: 

''Resolved, That we approve the plan for a nongovernmental institution, known as 
the 'Washington Memorial Institute,' to be established and maintained at Washing- 
ton, D. C. , for the purpose of promoting the study of science and liberal arts at the 
national capital, and of exercising systematic oversight of the advanced study and 
investigation to be carried on by duly qualified students in the Government labora- 
tories and collections in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution of Congress 
approved July 12, 1892, and that of the act of March 3, 1901." 

At the close of the report those signing it recommended the following: 

"Resolved, That the report of the committee authorized by resolution of July 11, 
1898, to investigate the entire subject of a national university, be received and the 
committee discharged." 

While technically, in accordance with parUamentary usage, the adoption of the 
above resolution did not commit the council to any expression of sentiment in the 
report, certain members had given out to the Associated Press views adverse to the 
establishment of a national university, and the council therefore felt very strongly 
that, while in deference to the committee they did not care to declare positively for 
a national university, they did not wish any opportunity for a misunderstanding of 
the matter to occur. After an interested discussion they passed, with but three dis- 
senting votes, the following resolution: 

"Resolved, That w^hile we wish to express our approval of the labors of the com- 
mittee, we are not prepared to abandon the oft-repeated declaration of the National 
Educational Association in favor of the establishment of a national university." 

Those who were active in the council in the advocacy of this resolution were satis- 
fied when the council declared their unwillingness to abandon the idea of the estab- 
lishment of a national university, but the active members of the general association 
took the matter up and passed a positive declaration in favor of a university for 
graduate work with Government support and under Government control. Thus the 
National Teachers' Association stands committed by oft-repeated declarations in 
favor of a governmental university under governmental control, notwithstanding the 
adverse report of the majority of the committee referred to above. The high stand- 
ing of the members of this committee in the educational world entitles them to very 
careful consideration, and there are reasons for the belief among those signing the 
report that there are those who are favorable to a national university, but regard the 
plan proposed as a means to this end. In order to fully understand the force of the 
recommendation of this committee it becomes necessary to examine the resolution 
quoted above, pointing out the plan proposed. But what was the resolution of 
Congress of 1892 and 1901, referred to in the report? The joint resolution of 1892 is 
as follows: 

"JOINT RESOLUTION to encourage the establishment and endowment of institutions of learning 
at the national capital by defining the policy of the Government with reference to the use of its 
literary and scientific collections by students. 

"Whereas large collections illustrative of the various arts and sciences, and facili- 
tating literary and scientific research, have been accumulated by the action of Con- 
gress through a series of years at the national capital; and 



70 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"Whereas it was the original purpose of the Government thereby to promote 
research and the diffusion of knowledge, and is now the settled policy and present 
practice of those charged with the care of these collections specially to encourage 
students who devote their time to the investigation and study of any branch of knowl- 
edge by allowing to them all proper use thereof; and 

" Whereas it is represented that the enumeration of these facilities and the formal 
statement of this policy will encourage the establishment and endowment of institu- 
tions of learning at the seat of government and promote the work of education by 
attracting students to avail themselves of the advantage aforesaid under the direction 
of competent instructors: Therefore 

'^ Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That the facilities for research and illustration in the following 
and any other governmental collections now existing or hereafter to be established 
in the city of Washington for the promotion of knowledge shall be accessible, ulider 
such rules and restrictions as the officers in charge of each collection may prescribe, 
subject to such authority as is now or may hereafter be permitted by law, to the sci- 
entific investigators and to students of any institution of higher education now incor- 
porated or hereafter to be incorporated under the laws of Congress or of the District 
of Columbia, to wit: ( 1 ) Of the Library of Congress; (2) of the National Museum; 
(3) Of the Patent Office; (4) of the Bureau of Education; (5) of the Bureau of Eth- 
nology; (6) of the Army Medical Museum; (7) of the Department of Agriculture; 
(8) of the Fish Commission; (9) of the Botanic Gardens; (10) of the Coast and Geo- 
detic Survey; (11) of the Geological Survey; (12) of the Naval Observatory. 

"Approved April 12, 1892." 

The resolution of 1901 was a part of the general deficiency appropriation bill passed 
by the second session of the Fifty-sixth Congress and approved March 3: "That facili- 
ties for study and research in the Government departments, the Library of Congress, 
the National Museum, the Zoological Park, the Bureau of Ethnology, the Fish Com- 
mission, the Botanical Gardens, and similar institutions hereafter established, shall 
be afforded to scientific investigators and to duly qualified individuals, students, and 
graduates of institutions of learning in the several States and Territories, as well as 
in the District of Columbia, under such rules and restrictions as the heads of the 
departments and bureaus mentioned may prescribe." 

These resolutions opened the way for a Washington memorial institute which 
requires some explanation. In 1898 a body of women founded the George Wash- 
ington Memorial Association, to advance and secure the establishment in the city 
of Washington, i). C, a university for the purposes and with the objects substantially 
as contemplated and set forth in and by the last will of George Washington, the first 
President of the United States of America, and to increase the opportunity for the 
higher education of the youth of the said United States, and to this end to collect, 
take, and hold moneys, gifts, and endowments, to take and to hold by purchase, 
donations, or demise real estate, to erect and furnish buildings to be used by said 
university when legally established, etc. 

In 1901 the Washington Memorial Association amended their certificate of incor- 
poration in such a way as to leave out the idea of a university. On May 17, 1901, 
the Washington Memorial Institution was incorporated. The particular business 
and objects of the institution are: To create a memorial to George Washington; to 
promote science and literature; to provide opportunities and facilities for higher 
learning; and to facilitate the utilization of the scientific and other resources of the 
Government for the purposes of research and higher education. 

In common with the great majority of the National Teachers' Association I can 
not agree with some of the conclusions of the report of the committee to the national 
council, nor in the wisdom of ultimately intrusting public property and public facili- 
ties to a private institution without any accountability whatever to public authority. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Tl 

I wish to remark that several of the men on the committee and on the board of trus- 
tees are my personal friends, and all are gentlemen whom I greatly respect and who 
are representative men of deservedly high standing and who would be eminently 
satisfactory to me as trustees of a nation's university. Thus what I have said and 
what I may hereafter say I wish to be distinctly understood as a discussion of means 
and measures and not of men. The plan for the Washington Memorial Institution 
was i^resented to the A. A. A. C. E. S. at their recent meeting in Washington, and 
the sentiment was found to be decidedly in favor of a national university. No action 
was taken. 

The committee say that this Washington Memorial Institution will be "independ- 
ent of Government support or control," and that its object will be "to facilitate the 
use of the scientific and other resources of the Government for research." One of the 
trustees has published an article in which he says ' ' no degree will be offered or con- 
ferred by the institution. It will be an aid and adjunct to the university, but not a 
new university or a torso of one." The situation, then, is this: We have a private 
institution in no way responsible to public authority, jointly with the heads of the 
departments of the Government proposing to administer, not a university, but such 
Government laboratories and other facilities as the departments may o]ien to stuiients. 

It would seem that great tact, good administrative skill, and great devotion to the 
public good would be requisite in order to avoid friction and secure to the students of 
the country the advantages in AVashington by such an arrangement. 

President Thompson, of Ohio State University, said recently in a speech in Wash- 
ington before the A. A. A. C. E. S. that "in the organization of this Memorial Insti- 
tution two things are admissible: One that it is a substitute for and a block to any 
national university movement; the other is that it is a stepping-stone that shall pre- 
pare the way for and demonstrate the advisability of such a movement." And again, 
"by the proposed management we assume (1) that the facilities can not be used by 
a national organization, or (2) that they would be better used and directed by a pri- 
vate than by a national organization, or (3) that such a use of the Government facili- 
ties would be unwise as a matter of public policy." 

So far as the movement l^eing a block to a national university, I heard one of the 
trustees say that a national university could not be established as long as he could 
help it, and I know that at least one other member shared the same view, but the 
members of the council committee who did not sign the report and several others 
who did sign the report are on record as favoring a national university and either are 
opposed to it or regard the memorial institution as a stepping-stone to a national 
university. 

That the facilities in AVashington can not be used l?y the national organization can 
not now be successfully maintained. Professor James has made an exhaustive study 
of the question of the constitutionality of a national university, and he finds a differ- 
ence of opinion among authorities, but the overwhelming consensus of testimony is 
on the side of ample power for such use. The council committee concede that there 
is no constitutional barrier. As a ste}^ping-stone to a national university the national 
memorial institution may be desirable. Certainly some agency sliould be provided 
for the best educational use of the great laboratories and storehouses of knowledge in 
Washington. 

That private management of a public institution is better for the country I question. 
It may be that the trust for a time would be as well, and possibly better, administered 
than it would be under public control. But what belongs to the people should be 
administered for them and by them. They may make mistakes. They may be 
deceived. Men of low motives may for a time control, but in time those institutions 
which exist for the education of the people in a democracy under the direct or indi- 
rect control of a people themselves wall ultimately fall into right hands. None of 
our public institutions are more free from political interference than our States' 



72 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

higher educational institutions. More and more our States' higher institutions of 
learning are being administered under business and educational principles and repre- 
sent what is best in the life of a people. More and more they adapt themselves to 
the people's ideas and the people's needs. To confess that the great public store- 
houses of material for study, libraries, and laboratories can be best administered in 
the long run for the use of such students as can be admitted to them by private 
rather than by national authority is a confession of incompetency on the part of our 
democratic Government that I for one am not willing to admit. 

That a national movement' would be unwise as a matter of public policy has only 
one argument in its favor so far as I know, and that seems to me invalid. The argu- 
ment is this, that it would antagonize existing institutions and depreciate their work 
in the public mind. This I believe an erroneous assumption. While they are of 
tremendous influence for good, the great universities of the country on private founda- 
tion could never become national in the sense of a public institution under public 
control. The existence of a great national educational movement under Government 
control would at once be the greatest stimulus to and guaranty for the continued 
development and improvement of the great private universities. The main question 
still remains. Should there be a national university under Government control in 
Washington, open to both individual and Government gifts and support? The reasons 
for such an institution are numerous and, as I believe, convincing: 

First. There are, as we have seen, vast resources in Washington which all educa- 
tional people agree should in some way, so far as possible, be placed at the disposal of 
advanced students. The resolutions of Congress passed in 1892 and 1901 also author- 
ize this. It is estimated that 13,000,000 is already expended annually in these 
departments, which in a large sense may now be considered a higher institution of 
learning. The various bureaus, while primarily established for very definite practi- 
cal purposes of the Government, have become also training schools for research 
work, and much work is already done which is truly university work of the highest 
order. President Jefferson felt the need of surveys to locate roads, harbors, and 
extend commerce. He brought to this country the Swiss engineer, Hassler, to begin 
the work. In time 'it was found cheaper and better to train our own men. Thus 
the Geodetic Survey on one side became a training school for hydrographic, topo- 
graphic, and geodetic surveying. ' Young and promising graduates from the colleges 
all over the land have thus secured graduate work. To-day the rjnited States Coast 
and Geodetic Survey is, as always, a Federal bureau, maintained solely for practical 
survey work designed to meet the industrial and commercial demands of a great 
nation; yet it is incidentally one of the first training schools in the world for advanced 
students in geodesy and certain branches of surveying. This is but one illustration 
of the opportunities in Washington. Much of the material of a great university has 
already been gathered there. The National Museum and the Army Medical Museum 
exceed any other collection in America in certain lines for investigation. The Library 
of Congress, the greatest public library in America, is a mine for the student of re- 
search. The Geological Survey, and the Biological Division of the Department of Agri- 
culture are carrying on investigations of the highest order. The United States Fish 
Commission, with which men from this State have had so much to do, is the source 
of the greater part of our knowledge of the life of our streams and the sea. It would 
take several pages merely to enumerate the educational opportunities of Washington, 
public and private. The work of these departments should be made useful, not only 
in its conclusions, but in its methods. A university consists of investigators teaching. 
All that the national capital needs to make a great university of it is that a real body 
of scholars should be maintained to train other men in the work now so worthily 
carried on and the establishment also of other lines. Even this training is given now 
to a few. To do this would be to bring to America in large degree all that American 
scholars now seek in the University of Berlin. Students will come when the highest 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 73 

opportunities for investigation are given. No standards of work can be made too 
high, for the severest standards attract rather than repel men who are worth 
educating. 

Second. A presumption in favor of a national university is to be found in the long 
line of illustrious men who have advocated its establishment. Franklin and others 
favored in the constitutional convention a clause in favor of a national university, 
but Gouverneur Morris opposed it on the ground that "the exclusive power at the seat 
of government would reach the object." There was no opposition to the project 
itself, and Presidents Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, J. Q. Adams, 
Jackson, Grant, and Hayes all referred in their messages to the establishment of a 
national university. Eminent statesmen, such as Senator Sumner and Senator 
Edmunds and many others, have advocated such an institution. Scholars, scientists, 
and educators from the foundation of the Government have favored it. College pres- 
idents very generally, with a few notable exceptions, have believed in it. The 
National Teachers' Association has repeatedly indorsed the movement. George 
AVashington evidently regarded the establishment of a national university as the 
leading want of American education. There are numerous letters and extracts from 
speeches and messages concerning his wishes which have been preserved. His gift 
of $25,000 to be used in part to accomplish his purpose is well known. His words 
in his last will and testament have often been quoted, but are so full of wisdom that 
I quote them here: 

"It has always been a source of serious regret with me to see the youth of these 
United States sent to foreign countries for the purpose of education, often before 
their minds are formed or they had imbibed any adequate ideas of the happiness of 
their own; contracting too frequently principles unfriendly to republican government 
and to the true and genuine liberties of mankind, which, thereafter, are rarely over- 
come. For these reasons it has been my ardent wish to see a plan devised on a liberal 
scale which would have a tendency to spread systematic ideas through all the parts 
of this rising empire, thereby to do away with local attachments and State prejudices, 
so far as the nature of things would, or, indeed, ought to admit, from our national 
councils. Looking anxiously forAvard to the accomplishment of so desirable an 
object as this is (in my estimation), my mind has not been able to contemplate any 
plan more likely to effect the measure than the establishment of a university in a 
central part of the United States to which the youths of fortune and talents from all 
parts thereof might be sent for the completion of their education in all the branches 
of polite literature, in arts and sciences, in acquiring knowledge in the principles of 
politics and good government, and (as a matter of infinite importance, in my judg- 
ment) by associating with each other and forming friendships in juvenile years be 
enabled to free themselves in a proper degree from those local prejudices and habit- 
ual jealousies which have thus been mentioned, and which, when carried to excess, 
are never-failing sources of disquietude to the public mind and pregnant of mis- 
chievous consequences to this country." 

Charles Kendall Adams, in commenting on the statements of Washington, says: 
"Thus fully did Washington set forth his views. With what wisdom and prescience 
did he behold what was before the country. He foresaw the sectional jealousies that 
were likely to arise, and he sought to avert them. He deplored the alienation from 
republican institutions that would spring up in immature minds educated under for- 
eign skies. He saw and again and again proclaimed the necessity of thorough and 
elaborate instruction in the science of government, and he ardently desired that the 
necessity of going to foreign lands for such instruction should be obviated. He knew 
that private benevolence, even if supplemented with the resources of the States, 
would be inadequate to the establishment of the needed institution. He saw that of 
all forms of government those which are most dependent upon ■ the intelligence and 
morality of the people must make the most careful provision for education in morality 



74 UNIVERSITY OF THE ITNITED STATES. 

and intelligence. He was fully aware that the ends which he sought could not be 
attained without the help of secondary as well as university education, and therefore 
he divided his gift between a preparatory school in Virginia and a university at the 
national capital. Thus we see that he labored under no such pestilent delusion as to 
suppose that an education in the mere rudiments of knowledge is a guaranty against 
the political dangers that were to be averted. It was a university — a university in 
the broadest and highest sense of the term — that was the peculiar object of his edu- 
cational solicitude. ' ' 

While it is true, doubtless, that a century has brought such development of uni- 
versities on both private and government foundations as Washington never dreamed 
of, it is also true that with this growth there has also come national needs and dangers 
which emphasize rather than detract from his conclusion. 

Third. A national university is needed to supplement existing universities and set 
standards for our jjublic schools. No existing institution is rich enough to cover the 
whole field, and no institution on other than this governmental foundation can have 
broad enough sympathies to look over the whole field and do just those things which 
the nation most needs. A national university would exist for the welfare of the 
nation. Such a university would help and not hinder other institutions which are 
doing good work. Nothing has helped the University of (California more than the 
establishment of Stanford University. The period since the establishment of the 
University of Chicago has been the period of greatest growth of all the larger insti- 
tutions of the surrounding States. The institution which has received the greatest 
benefit, I have no doubt, is the one which some thought woul'd be crippled by it. 
As to standards for our State schools, let me quote the honored Commissioner of Edu- 
cation, W. T. Harris: 

" A thorough consideration of the subject would exhibit more fully how it is that 
our colleges, as at present constituted, do not fully answer the needs of this country 
at this time. The problems of sociology and statesmanship, the philosophy of science, 
of literature, of history, of jurisprudence, these demand the concentrated labor of a 
large corps of salaried professors provided for at well-endowed colleges and universi- 
ties. It is in this respect that the national university, founded by the American 
State and endowed munificently, would prove of the greatest value to the community. 
It would emancipate our public schools from the twofold danger: (a) The danger 
from the influence of the colleges against the continuation of a liberal education when 
begun in the public high school; (b) the danger of a course of study in the common 
schools that dissipates the energies of the pupil by neglecting the disciplinary studies 
and substituting therefor a mere smattering of natural science. The national univer- 
sity, with its endowed professorships and fellowships, would furnish the desired 
center for free, untrammeled study into philosophy of those branches which are 
taught only in their elements even in the best colleges. It is the general views that 
we need in our higher education. A training in the philosophy of literature, history, 
and sciences can be obtained now only in German universities, but this would be a 
special function of our national university. Methodology is the final topic in the 
course of study. To understand the general relations of a branch and its method of 
evolution is the best thing to be learned; to give such insight is the province of the 
university. Whatever want of adaptation between our common schools and higher 
schools might arise would speedily become manifest through the highest link of our 
system, and its causes would be remedied." 

A national university would be the national climax of our public-school system. 
Each State has a system of elementary, secondary, and higher education. The national 
university should give us the highest education in graduate work and in research. 
While it is true that we have not a system in the sense that Germany has, and could 
not have, the same is true in the States. Our higher educational institutions now 
have no direct and legal control over .the grades below. They have just such influ- 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 75 

ence as their standards aiui reputation give them. In this way they do have a great 
influence on the grades below. It would be just so with the influence of a national 
university on the colleges and universities in the States. 

The opportunity for the highest graduate work and research in the United States 
n every department of learning can not be overestimated. It has been pointed out 
that the discoveries which have made the civilization of the nineteenth century so 
vastly superior to the sixteenth century are due to the work of a few men. If one per- 
son in every 10,000 of the men who have lived should be taken out, those being selected 
who have made these discoveries and those who might have made them, there would 
have been no progress in the last three hundred years. Looked at from this point 
of view, it is immensely important to the nation that men who are both intellectually 
able and willing to devote their lives to advanced research should have the oppor- 
tunity to do so. While the discoveries in pure science may not have any immediate 
practical application, in the long run the applications are sufficiently imi)ortant to 
repay many times over, even from a money point of view, for the money and time 
expended. The brilliant discoveries of Edison and Koch only become possibilities 
after many scientists, working in a quiet "way through different generations, had made 
discoveries which at the time were not seen to have any practical value. 

Fourth. Recently I asked a gentleman who has given much intelligent study to 
the problem of the establishment of a national university. What is the greatest reason 
for it? He answered at once, and decidedly: "The encouragement and development 
of an enlightened democracy." I did not ask for his reason, but I believe his answer 
is a true one. The people need a national university and a national university needs 
the people. It is the business of a university to discover and promulgate the truth 
and to teach men how to do these things. It is the business of a national university 
of the United States, first of all, to discover and promulgate among our citizens those 
principles which will make American democracy purer and better and stronger with 
the years. If our form of government is to be perpetuated by the education of the 
people, and in order that that education may be sound so far as it goes, we need the 
highest education which the world affords; and in order that the national ideas may 
be improved and preserved, we need to have our men who receive the highest educa- 
tion obtain it under the impulses and ideals of our national spirit and national life. 

It is not the needs of the District of Columbia which are to be met by a university 
of the United States. It is the need of the nation. Not of the nation alone, but of 
the world. A great university in America would be a school for the study of civic 
freedom. A great university at the capital of the Republic would attract the free- 
minded of all the earth. It would draw men of all lands to the study of democracy. 
It would tend to make the study of democracy more worthy of respectful study. 
The New AVorld has its lessons as well as the Old, and its material for teaching these 
lessons should be made equally adequate. Only the nation is equal to the task of 
founding an institution which can perform these services. If the church and indi- 
viduals wish to assist in it, well and good. There is need for both private and public 
effort, but there is no more reason for leaving a national university for private effort 
alone than there is for leaving any other urgent need of the nation. Private effort 
has not yet supplied the need. In the nature of the case it can not and will not do 
it, and as an independent nation we should not permit it. 

On the side of the usefulness of the university itself, it needs the people. Institu- 
tions, like men, to use Lincoln's phrase, "need a bath of the people." An institution 
must listen to its constituents and supporters. It is all right to have your heads in 
the clouds, but your feet must be upon the earth. So a national university would 
necessarily keep close to and prcvserve what is best in the instincts, ideals, and wishes 
of the common man. That is what I understand to be the development and encour- 
agement of an enlightened democracy. 

In all this I have not advocated any special scheme or any of the numerous bills 



76 LTNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

which have been prepared and introduced into Congress; This matter must be left 
to those in power to do what they can. I have faith that the national university will 
some day come as the logical outgrowth of what has already been done. It may take 
many years, even many generations, to realize the ideals of those who believe a 
national university to be the greatest need of American education to-day. 

In conclusion, I would present a summary of the reasons given for such an institu- 
tion by the untiring ex-Governor Hoyt, who has devoted many years and many 
thousands of dollars to the advancement of a national university. [See pages — of 
Report.] 

1. Neither existing institutions nor the great denominational universities in prospect 
can meet the demand. The nation only is equal to the founding of such a university 
as the nation needs. 

2. The nation needs its influence upon the Government service. 

3. The American system of education can only be made complete by the crowning 
university it lacks, as a means of coordination and inspiration. 

4. A national university would powerfully strengthen the patriotic sentiment of 
the country. 

5. A national university would more strongly than any other attract men of genius 
from every quarter of the world to its professorships and fellowships, thus increasing 
the cultured intellectual forces of both institution and country. 

6. A national university would especially attract students of high character from 
many lands, whose return after years of contact with free institutions would promote 
the cause of liberal government everywhere. 

7. The founding of a national university would be, therefore, a most fitting thing 
for a great nation ambitious to lead the ^vorld in civilization. 



A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY: A STUDY. 

By William A. Mowry, of Massachusetts. 

[Read before the National Educational Association at Nashville, July 17, 1889.] 

Education in the United States has experienced within the last century a rapid 
growth and a remarkable development. Many circumstances have been favorable 
and many unfavorable. The early settlers of this country from Europe were gener- 
ally of hardy and vigorous races, intelligent, ambitious, many of them possessing 
high attainments and strong character. Several of the English colonies early mani- 
fested, a broad interest in learning, with rare good judgment appreciating the fact that 
a new country especially must depend greatly for its success upon the intelligence of 

the masses and the higher education of the learned professions. 

******* 

Within the last twenty-five years it has become more and more apparent that the 
great need of this country educationally is in the way of advanced learning. Rela- 
tively, we have primary schools enough, and grammar schools enough, and possibly 
enough of the secondary schools, if they were only better, and surely we have col- 
leges and universities enough and to spare. But what means Cornell University, and 
Johns Hopkins University, and now what means Clark University? The establish- 
ment and remarkable success of Johns Hopkins University at Baltimore are strongly 
indicative of the absolute necessity of pushing our American education forward into 
new fields and upward to more elevated plateaus. It is a common remark and 
notoriously true that in America the elements of education are more widespread than 
in Europe, yet the higher education of the Old World is far in advance of anything to 
be found with us. Moreover, our situation and our circumstances are such — our 
necessities, our needs, our opportunities — that precisely the reverse of this ought to 



UlSriVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 77 

be true. I^o not lose sight of the fact that this is a very large country. It is enei'- 
getic, enterprising, wealthy, and fast becoming populous. There is a greater demand, 
a stronger necessity, to-day with us for higher knowledge, deeper insight, a more,, 
thorough study and apprehension of all branches of knowledge and learning than 
exists in any other nation under heaven. We could to-day utilize to a greater degree 
than any other people profound researches in nature, in art, in the humanities. 
There is no department of the higher education which is not needed to-day by our 
people to be pushed to its utmost limit. In how many cases do the aimless search- 
ings after truth among us remind one of a stanch vessel, strong and well equijaped, 
drifting in mid ocean, without a pilot, without a chart, without a compass, even 
without a rudder. In natural science, including all its departments, in history, in 
classical learning, in philology, in the useful arts and the fine arts, in law and medi- 
cine and divinity, in telegraphy, in telephony, in telephoty, in social science, 
especially economics and civics, in all the range of the metaphysics, and in fine in 
every department of human learning, thought, and investigation there is a marked 
necessity for higher study and higher instruction than this country has yet produced. 

Pause a moment with me to observe a few of these crying necessities. With all the 
advance which we have made in the study of natural phenomena there is yet no man 
living who understands the theory of storms; no man living can satisfactorily explain 
the ocean currents; nobody has yet discovered a satisfactory explanation of the tides; 
no complete, rational theory of medicine exists, but we are still tied down largely to 
empiricism. Psychology is based on physiology, but no one yet comprehends the 
relations and the action of the two lobes of the brain and the two sets of nerves. No 
satisfactory theory is yet agreed upon with respect to bacteria and the germs of dis- 
ease in general — epidemics, epizootics, and the like. No man has yet arisen who can 
successfully untie and untangle the knots and snarls which Adam Smith, more than 
a century ago, pushed out before the learned men of the world, and over whic;h they 
have ever since been quarreling. Our politicians and our statesmen are still discussing 
with great vigor and force the questions of protection and free trade, of mono and 
bi metalism, of State rights and national unity, of home consumption and foreign 
commerce, of national subsidies and natural currents of trade, and possibly they are 
now as far from an agreement as ever. 

It is not to be expected that any one jjanacea can be discovered or any one patent 
medicine can be compounded that will free the body politic from all these ills and all 
this ignorance that the nation is heir to; but the question is a fair one, and certainly 
one of great importance, whether it is not possible by proper means and reasonable 
efforts to diminish to a considerable extent the difficulties and dangers here pointed 
out. 

The success of Johns Hopkins University has been phenomenal. It has given 
opportunities for a higher standard of scholarship than we before possessed. It has 
helped to elevate the work of all the colleges, but it has also served to show clearly 
the necessity of still further advances. What is needed now is an institution far 
beyond Johns Hopkins. The liberality of wealthy Americans has been so great as 
almost to make it seem that it had no limit, but it certainly is not without limit. It 
can hardly be expected that private munificence will be able to establish a uni- 
versity in this country with sufficient means to perform adequately the service 
required in the higher realms of learning. We are therefore shut up to the necessity 
of having this needed institution established by the whole people as represented bj)- 
our National Government. That, and that alone, will be able to accomj^lish this 
great work. 

Such an institution as is needed ought to be endowed with productive funds to the 
extent of at least $200,000,000. This at 3 per cent interest would bring an annual 
income of $6,000,000. If the Government of the United States should set apart this 
amount of its bonds for this specific purjiose, to be kept at interest, so that there 



78 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

might be a reliable permanent annual income of at least $6,000,000, the problem of 
the much needed higher development of profound learning would at once be on the 
way toward a solution. 

The first question in the discussion of a proposition of such proportions deals with 
the ability and the advisability of the National Government to make and endow such 
an establishment. There is an opinion, more or less prevalent in every community, 
that our National Government had better not meddle with educational matters. It 
is true that the National Government, as such, is not committed to any general sys- 
tem of education, because it was the policy of the framers of our Constitution to leave 
in the hands of the States and the people of the States all rights and duties which 
did not seem necessary to be conferred upon the National Government. 

The General Government has, however, in various ways committed itself to the 
cause of education. In addition to setting apart the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sec- 
tions of each township for educational purposes, appropriations of land in the newer 
States have been made for State universities. Fifty years ago a surplus fund of about 
$30,000,000 had accumulated in the National Treasury. This surplus revenue was dis- 
tributed, by an act of Congress, among the States then existing. Many of the States set 
apart their share of this fund for school purposes. The Government has maintained at 
its own expense a Military Academy at West Point, for the education of army officers; 
a Naval Academy at AnnapolLs, to educate officers for the Navy; a college for deaf- 
mutes at Washington; a school for instruction in the signal service at Fort Whipple, 
Va., near Washington; and Congress has from time to time during later years done 
much for the education of the Indians. It has, especially qf late, made liberal appro- 
priations for the excellent schools for the Indian youth now maintained at Hampton, 
Va., Carlisle, Pa., Salem, Oreg., Santa Fe, N. Mex., and other places. It has main- 
tained common schools at various military posts, and the President has lately estab- 
lished a system of education for the Territory of Alaska. It has established, and has 
for many years maintained with great profit to the nation, a Bureau of Education, 
which, by the collection of statistics and the publication of useful circulars of infor- 
mation, has done much to elevate the general status of education. 



THE SCOPE OF THE UNIVERSITY. 

I do not think there would be sufficient reasons for establishing by the Govern- 
ment a national college of the ordinary type. The State universities and the large 
number of colleges established in the several States by private munificence are suffi- 
cient for the needs of the people. If the proposed national university were to be 
modeled after the plan of Harvard or Yale, Cornell or Ann Arbor, or even Johns 
Hopkins, it had better not be founded. The purpose and scope of such an institution 
should be for higher and broader work than can now be done in any existing institu- 
tion. Its object should be largely for original investigation. It should, in many 
departments at least, aim primarily to reach out to the unknown. Its standard 
should be higher than that of any institution in the world. It should have no under- 
graduate courses, but all of its work should be above and beyond the ordinary col- 
lege curriculum. The institution should be closely connected with the Smithsonian 
Institution, the National Museum, the bureau of light-houses, the Geological Sur- 
vey, the Coast Survey, the Department of Agriculture; all scientific investigations of 
the Depai'tment of the Navy, such as deep-sea soundings, ocean currents, tides, and 
the like; the Weather Bureau, the Congressional Library, and all other departments 
of the Government where the connection would be mutually advantageous. It 
should include the Bureau of Education, the work of which should be broadened and 
strengthened. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 79 

ITS COURSES OF STUDY. 

The plan for such a university as here contemplated proceeds on the supposition 
that the funds at its disposal from year to year are amply sufficient to allow its mem- 
bers and fellows to pursue lines of study for any number of years, even through a 
lifetime. 

(a) In nataml science. — The lines of study to be pursued in this miiversity in the 
department of natural science should include the higher realms of investigation in 
geography, physics, chemistry, meteorology, zoology and natural history, physiology, 
biology, botany, astronomy — including especially the investigation of the laws and 
phenomena of the solar system and various lines of study in relation to the fixed 
stars, nebuhe, and theories of the universe; and special studies in whatever direction 
might seem, from time to time, wise to undertake. In mentioning the foregoing list, 
classification of the sciences is not intended, but only to call special attention to cer- 
tain lines and topics which seem especially to need investigation. 

(5) The mathematics. — Here the effort should be to push this branch of study, 
like all other branches, to the furthest limit. The higher mathematics, algebra, 
geometry, trigonometry, analytical geometry, the calculus, the mathematics of the 
earth, e. g., its quantity of matter, weight, size, diameter, circumference, absolute 
length of a degree of longitude at different latitudes, absolute length of a degree of 
latitude from the equator to the poles, systems of measurements, etc., astronomical 
mathematics with all its varied applications in different directions, and, in short, the 
study and investigation of any and every department of mathematical inquiry which 
might seem wise, necessary, or useful. 

(e) Language study. — Under this head should be included the greatest facilities for 
the study of every language, ancient or modern, that might seem desirable, and to 
such an extent as might seem desirable; the literature of all nations and of all times; 
all questions of profound inquiry into the Latin and the Cireek languages and litera- 
tures, the investigation of intricate and disputed questions concerning modern or 
ancient languages, and all branches of the study of philology. 

(d) History. — Here is a branch of learning which is even now but beginning to be 
developed and pursued scientifically. Instruction should be given in the philosophy 
of history, the laws of history, the history of nations and peoples, with special refer- 
ence to the causes and accessories of their development, growth, strength, and decay; 
the characteristics of races; the influences of climate; the effects of institutions, and, 
in fine, the general laws and philosophy of the development of mankind. Special 
attention should be paid to the study of our own history and to the types of mind 
necessary for successful historians and the underlying laws and principles that should 
govern the writing of any history, bearing in mind the practical advantages which 
would accrue from the introduction of better and more scientific methods of studying 
and writing history. 

(e) The metaphysics.— In this department should be elaborated the best methods of 
study and of teaching the most profound philosophy of all metaphysical inquiry. An 
historical investigation should be early made into the various leading schools of phi- 
losophy in the past, their strength, their weaknesses, and their influence ujjon human 
thought. Further analysis here is unnecessary. 

(/) Socicd science. — Under this head might perhaps be included the study of eco- 
nomics, civics, labor and cajDital, penal and reformatory institutions, the State and 
education, and many other subjects which need not be specifically mentioned. 

{g) The school of laiv.— There should be connected Avith this institution a depart- 
ment for the study of law, which should include a more scientific and complete inves- 
tigation of the underlying principles of this important line of human inquiry than 
has ever before been attempted. The department of international law should be 



80 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

made prominent. The principles of arbitration and peaceful settlement of interna- 
tional difficulties should be elaborated. The principles of common law and of the 
various branches of law practice as applicable to business and to the development of 
the State should receive special consideration. The history of the leading systems 
of law, ancient and modern, should be carefully studied. Improvements in our 
codes should be suggested. There should be a school of diplomacy for instruction in 
the principles and duties of statesmen, foreign ministers, consuls, etc. 

{h) The school of medicine. — It should not be the i^rovince of the school of law in 
this institution to make lawyers, but to study the intricate questions of the higher 
range of topics relating to the fundamental principles and practices, especially in 
reference to their bearing upon national and governmental matters. Nor should it 
be the province of the school of medicine to fit young men for the ordinary practice 
of the healing art, but to develop a higher range of thought and knov,^ledge and work 
along the line of specialties in which so great advance and improvement have been 
made of late, particularly in the schools of the Old World. In connection with the 
medical departments of the Army and Navy there should be furnished in this insti- 
tution the best facilities for this study which the world can afford. Suppose that one 
man, or ten men, should devote their entire lifetime to the study of bacteria, what 
important results might be among the possibilities? What might not such an insti- 
tution have done for Jacksonville? 

(i) Engineering. — In connection with the Corps of Engineers in the Army there 
should be furnished in this institution the best facilities for the study of the highest 
range of thought and practice in railroad engineering, mining engineering, topo- 
graphical engineering, bridge building, and every part of this practical and useful 
science and art. The matter of river and harbor improvements by the General Gov- 
ernment might be placed under the care of this institution. 

(j) The science of warfare. — It is possible that the military school at West Point 
and the naval school at Annapolis might be made departments of this institution, 
receiving thereby great advantages and without transferring the immediate control 
from the departments of the Army and the Navy. Or, the West Point cadets — such as 
might be the best qualified — might, after graduating, go to Washington to study for 
professorships. In addition to these schools there might be established courses of 
lectures and study for superior army officers, and perhaps others, for the investigation 
of advanced modes of carrying on war whenever the necessity may arise. 

(k) The Weather Bureau. — This bureau of the Government should become a part 
of the national university and form a regular department in its study and work. The 
most learned professors which the world affords should here give instruction and 
pursue investigations in this intricate science. 

[l) The Census Bureau should be a permanent department under this university, 
and there should be in connection therewith a well-organized bureau of statistics. 

The foregoing list of l^ranches for stud}' and for investigation are in no sense designed 
to be scientifically arranged or to be exhaustive and complete, but they have been 
introduced only for the purpose of giving a general idea of the plan and scope which 
might characterize such an institution. All that is intended to be conveyed in this 
direction is simply the fact that if our Government should establish a national uni- 
versity, it should be the principal design and aim of such an institution to investigate 
in the broadest and deepest manner possible all branches of higher learning, and to 
carry this investigation to the farthest possible limit. I have not mentioned the 
study of the fine arts, music, painting and sculpture, although they might perhajDS as 
well be included as any of the courses named. The Civil Service Bureau, and from 
time to time other new bureaus, should be added to this university. Indeed, there 
seems to be no good reason why the courses of study should not be coextensive with 
the limits of human thought and investigation. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 81 

ITS PLAN OF ORGANIZATION. 

I am not unaware of the fact, that concerning every one of the topics here discussed 
there will naturally be found very different opinions and views from those here given.' 
I am only aiming to express, as clearly as I may, the plan which lies in my mind. I 
do not anticipate that this scheme will be at once adopted by our Government, nor 
do I even ask the approval of this association. My sole object is a desire to present 
for further thought and general consideration a broad plan such as, if carried out, 
might be found of great advantage to the country. It has seemed to me that the 
following might be not an unwise plan for its organization, and everyone will see at 
a glance that this would give us the greatest and l^roadest educational institution in 
the world. It should be estaljlished by the United States Government. It should be 
at once placed upon an independent financial basis. Its funds should be 1200,000,000. 
The entire amount should be invested as permanent funds, with an unehagneable 
provision that only the income of the whole amount should be used. Of course, it 
would require several years to get such an institution into full working order, and 
during these years the income of six or seven millions each year would be sufficient 
to erect and equip the proper buildings and furnish the necessary api^aratus. These 
buildings should be located in Washington. It were better to have them on Govern- 
ment lands, although this is not essential. It might be thought advisable to have 
lii'anches in the various sections of the country for experiments and the study of 
agriculture, floriculture, arboriculture, and for the study of the flora and fauna in the 
different latitudes. It has already been said that the university should be beyond 
the reach of politics and political influence. 



FELLOWSHIPS. 

Under this department the most important work of the university is to be done. 
There should be a class termed "fellows of the university," who have taken the 
regular courses of study in this institution in some one direction — or by exception, 
without having thus taken them — for example, the line of sciences, or of classical 
study, or the metaphysics, or economics, etc. Every fellow of the university is to 
be selected and approved by the faculty and appointed by special vote of the trustees 
to carry on some line of l)road study. These fellows shall pursue studies in classes 
or groups, or singly as the case may require, under the direction of that branch of 
the faculty having charge of the particular line of study pursued. The object of this 
work shall be to add something original to the sum total of human learning and 
knowledge. Their studies may be continued so long as the faculty in charge shall 
deem it advisable, whether for one year or a lifetime. 

Let me outline some of the possibilities of the work Avhich might be done by the 
faculty and fellows of this university. The Department of Geological Survey should 
be established on such a basis that this whole country should be mapped out and its 
geological features and mineralogical riches should be carefully studied and published 
for the benefit of the country. The Weather Bureau should be organized in such a way 
as in a series of years to collect facts sufficient to form the data for a complete and 
scientific theory of tempests, tornadoes, and storms of all kinds. The entire theory 
of evaporation and the rainfall, of the winds, as to their direction and force, and all 
matters relating to the meteorology of the country should be elaborated and inade 
plain. The Coast Survey should be reorganized and its work continued. Expeditions 
should be planned and executed for the study of ocean currents and tidal waves, and, 
in fact, of the entire theory and practical operation and effects of the tides. The most 
elaborate preparations should be made for the observation of eclipses and other astro- 
nomical phenomena. In cases of disaster — for example, the breaking down of a rail- 
road bridge, the destruction in the Conemaugh Valley, a great fire, an epidemic, a 



S. Rep. 945 6 



82 UlSriVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

blizzard, or a tornado — an expedition should be immediately sent to the spot for care- 
ful investigation into the causes, circumstances, and results, and all this should be 
tabulated for future use. In short, the object constantly in mind for the work of 
the fellows of the university would be to take advantage of all remarkable phenomena 
and so apply the full power of the microscope of all science as to educe in every instance 
such knowledge as shall be for the benefit of mankind. Among these fellows we 
should expect to find our poet laureate, our best writers of fiction, philosophers, 
inventors, discoverers, benefactors. Fellows of the university should receive a fixed 
salary according to their grade and experience — a salary sufficient to induce them to 
remain permanently at their work. In this way we should hav'e clustering around 
the national university the ablest men, the highest scholarship, the soundest philos- 
ophy, the deepest science of the world; and who can measure or weigh or estimate 
the advantages which would accrue to society and to the world at large from such 
concentration of scholarship and learning? 

The United States should be not only the greatest and strongest of the nations, 
but she should be the wisest and most beneficent. She has laid a broad foundation 
for a pyramid (which should be larger and more enduring than those of Egypt) in 
the general diffusion of the elements of learning for all her youth in our beneficent 
system of public schools. Let her now, by the establishment of this national uni- 
versity, build securely and strongly upon this basis and extend upward this great 
pyramid till its apex shall be high up in the heavens, above all mists of ignorance, 
superstition, vice, and crime. 



THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY."^ 

By Edmuxd J. James, of the University of Chicago. 

The chairman of the committee to investigate the project for a national university 
has requested me to prepare a memorandum upon the constitutional aspects of the 
plan for a national university, to be founded and supported by the Federal Govern- 
ment in the city of Washington. 

It is fitting that the question of the constitutionality of such an enterprise should 
be taken up and discussed first of all; for if upon examination it is the opinion of 
this committee that such a scheme would be unconstitutional our work would be 
very simple and limited to the formulation of one of two propositions. We should 
either recommend to the national council that, inasmuch as the Federal Government 
has received no authority to establish and maintain a national university, the national 
council should not lend its support to an attempt to carry out the undertaking; or, 
in case we become further convinced that such an institution would be desirable, 
our recommendation would be to the effect that the national council should assist in 
securing such an amendment to the Constitution as would enable the Federal Gov- 
ernment to carry through the enterprise. 

. Probably the best way to present the subject to this committee is to give a brief 
account of the history of this project so far as it has involved the discussion of con- 
stitutional questions. All parties in the United States agree that the Federal Gov- 
ernment is one of limited and delegated powers; that it is in no sense a depository 
of residual authority, and that it can have no power to establish and maintain a 
national university unless this power is given to it in the Constitution of the United 
States. All parties agree that the burden of proof that the proposed measure is con- 
stitutional rests upon the party urging the Federal Government to adopt it. 

'■'-A report submitted at Washington, November 2, 1899, to the committee to inves- 
tigate the project for a national university, appointed by the council of education, 
National Educational Association. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 83 

We can not accept the view, therefore, that such action would be constitutional 
unless we become convinced that the authority to take it is vested in the Federal 
Government by the Constitution of the United States. It is plain that no such 
authority is vested in express terms, as there is no mention made in the body of the 
Constitution of the subject of a national university nor, indeed, of education at all, 
either elementary, secondary, or higher. 

If this power has been vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution, it 
must therefore be by virture of some implication contained in the powers which are 
expressly granted, or because it constitutes an essential or necessary part of some 
authority which is specifically enumerated, or because it is necessarily bound up in 
the very idea of a government such as that organized under the Constitution. It 
must be, to use technical language, either an implied, a resulting, or an implicit 
power. Under which of these heads such an authority may be placed, if we shall 
find it to be actually conferred, vrill appear perhaps most plainly, as suggested above^ 
from an examination of the history of the constitutional discussions relating to this 
subject. 

There seems to have been a general notion abroad in the country during the period 
preceding the drafting and adoption of tlie Federal Constitution that the new Federal 
authority would establish and maintain a national university at its seat of sovern- 
ment. The current literature of the time contains many hints and suggestions to this 
effect, and there seems to have been a generally felt need at that time of some such 
central and adequately endowed institution in order to supplement the existing edu- 
cational facilities of the country. 

In the constitutional convention itself the project appeared on .several different 
occasions. In Charles Pinckney's draft of the Federal Constitution, sulmiitted to the 
convention May 29, 1787, a clause was contained in the enumeration of the powers 
of the new government giving to the Congress the authority "to establish a national 
university." -'■ In James Madison's proposition to confer additional powers upon the 
Congress, made August 18, 1787, a similar clause was contained." 

When the report of the committee on revision came up for discussion on Septem- 
ber 14, Madison and Pinckney united in the motion to insert in the amended and 
revised draft, from which had been dropped their former -recommendations, a clause 
conferring upon the Congress authority to establish a national university." 

Wilson supported the motion, Gouverneur Morris opposed it on the ground that 
such a clause was unnecessary, since the power proposed was already included in the 
grant of exclusive jurisdiction over the seat of government. Four States then voted 
to insert the clause, six voted against such insertion, and one State was divided. 

The proposition to add this authority to the list of enumerated powers in the Con- 
stitution was thus rejected, but there was nothing in the minutes of the conven- 
tion going to show the grounds upon which this rejection was made. Wliether it 
was because the members of the convention were opposed to conferring such an 
authority upon the Congress, or because they thought that it had been conferred by 
some other clause, and, therefore, did not need specific enumeration, does not appear. 

It is interesting to note, however, that so far as the records of the convention show 
there was no objection to the principle of the proposition. No one hinted that it 
was not desirable to vest such a power in the Federal Government, or that such an 
institution was not necessary or expedient. 

The current discussion of the time contains many traces that the view of Gouver- 
neur Morris expressed in the constitutional convention was correct, namely, that the 
Federal Government had received authority by other clauses than the one proposed 

^Journal of the Federal Convention, kept by James Madison, edited by E. H. 
Scott, Chicago, p. 66. 
"Journal of the Federal Convention, etc., p. 550.. 



84 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

to exercise such a function. There seems to have been a sort of general agreement 
that the new government had the power to establish such an institution if it desired, 
and there were many who urged the desirabilit_v of such an institution upon the 
attention of Congress and the country. 

Washington himself, to whom this project was especially dear and to whom it 
grew ever more precious as he appro iched his end, evidently took it for granted that 
the authority to establish such an institution had been conferred upon the Federal 
Government by the Constitution. In his second annual message, dated January 8, 
1790, Washington declared that there was nothing which better deserved tlie patron- 
age of Congress than the promotion of science and literature. He adds, " Whether 
this desirable object vvdll best be promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learn- 
ing or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of 
the legislature." '^ 

The Senate, in answer to this address, seemed to accept the view that the Federal 
Government had the function of promoting literature and science,'' as did the House 
in its response to the same address. 

By virtue" of the authority conferred upon Washington to set aside certain sites 
for the needed jDublic buildings in the new District of Columbia, he assigned a site 
of neai'ly twenty acres for a national university; and in his message to Congress, 
dated December 7, 1796, he urged in strong terms the establishment of a national 
universitJ^ The Senate, in its response, seems to agree that such a step would 
be wise. 

At the same Congress the Federal commissioners appointed to lay out the city of 
Washington made a report to Congress, in which they urged very strongly the estab- 
lishment of a national university in the city of W^ashington, in the District of Colum- 
bia, in accordance M'ith Washington's proposal. 

That portion of Washington's annual message referring to this subject and the 
report of the Federal commissioners upon the same topic was referred to a select 
committee, of which James Madison was the chairm.an. This committee made a 
report on December 21, 1796, to the following effect: 

"Eesolved, That it is expedient at present, that authoritj' should be given as prayed 
for by said memorial to proper persons to receive and hold in trust pecuniary dona- 
tions in aid of the appropriations already made toward the establishment of a 
university within the District of Columbia."'^' 

It will be seen from this that the Federal commissioners, wdiile in favor of estab- 
lishing a national university endowed and supported by the JSTational Government, 
did not feel that it was entirely wise to make such a recommendation, and i^roposed, 
therefore, simply that a charter of incorporation be granted to certain trustees to 
accept gifts or donations from private parties in furtherance of this purpose. 

It will be noted also that this resolution speaks of appropriations already made 
toward such a universitj^, referring doubtless to the lands set aside by the direction 
of the President for this purpose. 

This recommendation of Madison's committee was debated at some length in the 
House. The friends of the motion urged that they were not asking the approval of 
the House for a motion looking toward the establishment and maintenance of a 
national university at Federal expense, but that they were simply asking for the 
incorporation of a board of trustees who might accept any money which should be 
given for this purpose. The opponents of the motion emphasized the fact that this 

^ Annals of Congress, First Congress, Vol. I, p. 933. 

"Annals, etc., p. 936. 

° Annals, etc., p. 1052. 

•^American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. I, No. 91, p. 153. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 85 

would be a mere entering wedge for the establishment of an institution to be sup- 
ported from the Federal treasury. Madison himself declared that he would not vote 
for the report except with the understanding that the institution was not to become 
a burden on the nation. 

It will be seen that this special proposition, therefore, was not for a national uni- 
yersity in the sense in which we are using that term in our discussion, but merely 
for the establishment of an institution under the auspices of the Government, to be 
supported by private contributions. 

Even so, the opposition to the proposition was so great that, after a debate of some 
two days, action was finally postponed by a majority of one, ostensibly to find out 
whether the State of Maryland might not grant this charter of incorporation instead 
of the Federal Government, and the motion was not again brought up. 

There is no indication in the record of this debate that such a proposition was con- 
sidered unconstitutional, at least by any great number of the members. The whole 
course of the debate went to show that such an institution, owing to the conditions 
of the time, difficulty of transportation, etc., would be largely a local and not a truly 
national enterprise; or went to show that education was something which the States 
ought to look after themselves, and in the support of which they should not be 
encouraged to expect aid from the National Government. 

This action did not deter AVashington from still insisting, wherever it was possible, 
upon the desirability of such an institution, nor from his giving a considerable sum 
for its endowment. 

In the following years, the intense excitement over international relations, the 
struggle over the alien and sedition laws, etc., gave rise to keen discussions of con- 
stitutional authority, ending with the debates over the Virginia and Kentucky reso- 
lutions, in which the whole question of the powers of the National Government over 
against those of the States was canvassed as never before, and, indeed, but as few 
times since in the history of the country. 

When Jefferson became President of the United States he urged, in his message of 
December 2, 1806, that the income from taxes should be rather applied to the great 
purpose of public education, roads, rivers, canals, etc. , than to the reduction of duties 
on imports and other similar burdens. He adds: "I suppose an amendment to the 
Constitution necessary, because the objects now mentioned are not among those enu- 
merated in the Constitution." From which it would -appear that, in his opinion, the 
Federal Government did not have authority to establish a national university. 

In his message of November 8, 1808, he says, speaking of the surplus funds in the 
United States Treasury: "Shall the revenue be reduced, or shall it not rather be 
appropriated to the improvements of roads and canals, rivers, education, and other 
foundations of prosperity of the Union under the powers which Congress may already 
possess, or such amendment to the Constitution as may be approved by the States." 
It will be remembered, however, that while Jefferson thought that Louisiana could 
not be purchased, and that money could not be appropriated for internal improve- 
ments under the Constitution, yet he not only negotiated the Louisiana purchase, 
and signed the bill to appropriate money in accordance therewith, but that he also, 
an March 29, 1806, approved the first Cumberland road bill, which involved the 
expenditure of money from the United States Treasury for the purpose of carrying 
out internal improvements within the States. 

Madison, in his message of December 5, 1810, recommends "the establishment 
of a seminary of learning instituted by the National Legislature within the limits of 
their exclusive jurisdiction, the expense of which might be defrayed out of the 
vacant grounds which have accrued to the nation within its limits." In other 
words, he recommends a national university to be supported, not by appropriations 
from the Federal treasury, nor by appropriations from the sale of public lands in 



86 Uls^IYERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

general belonging to the Government, but by the sale of lands belonging to the Gov- 
ernment situated within the District of Columbia. 

The committee to whom this jjart of the President's message was intrusted in the 
House of Eepresentatives declared in their report that, while Congress might incor- 
porate a private seminary of learning for the benefit of the people of the District of 
Columbia, it had no authority to appropriate money from the Federal treasury for 
its support. "The erection," they declared, "of a university upon the enlarged and 
magniticent plan which would become the nation is not within the powers confided 
to Congress." As to Madison's suggestion about the proceeds of vacant lauds, they 
did not believe that such proceeds would amount to enough to make it worth while 
to start anything ujjon that basis, even if there were no constitutional impediments. 
They recommended that no action be taken in regard to the President's ^proposition 
relating to a national university. " 

Madison, however, repeated his recommendation of 1810 in his message of Decem- 
ber 5, 1815. A committee was appointed by the House to consider this recommen- 
dation, and reported a bill February 20, 1816, for establishing a national university 
based upon Federal appropriations. The attempt was made to call it up on April 12, 
but the House then refused to consider it, and on April 27 the bill was indefinitely 
postponed . 

Madison, not deterred by the fate of his previous recommendations, urged this 
subject in his message of December 3, 1816, upon the attention of Congress in still 
stronger terms than in his previous message. 

"The importance Avhich I have attached to the estal;)lishment of a national uni- 
versity within the District of Columbia on the scale and for objects worthy of the 
American nation induces me to renew my recommendations of it to the favorable 
consideration of Congress. ' ' 

The special committee to which this recommendation was referred made a lengthy 
report to the House December 11, 1816. It took the ground that "the means were 
ample, the end desirable, and the object fairly within the legislative powers of Con- 
gress," and, consequently, that a national university should be established, and in 
accordance with that recommendation it reported a bill to establish a university 
upon the basis of Federal api^ropriations.'' 

Mr. Atherton proposed on the next day, December 12, 1816, an amendment to the 
Constitution conferring on Congress the authority to establish a national university; 
but the House refused to consider it by a vote of 54 to 56. 

Mr. Wilde attempted to have the report of this committee considered by the House, 
but, failing repeatedly, asked finally for the discharge of the coinmittee on March 3, 
1817. 

President Monroe, in his first message, December 2, 1817, recommended that Con- 
gress propose an amendment to the Constitution w'herebj' it should be authorized to 
institute seminaries of learning. Fi^om which it would appear that, in his opinion, 
the Constitution conferred no such authority upon the Federal GoA'ernment. 

It was in the same message, ho"\vever, that he expressed the same opinion in regard 
to the power of the Federal Government to appropriate money for the carrying out 
of internal improvements, holding that no such authority existed, and that, before 
such a policy could be adopted, it would be necessary to obtain an amendment to 
the Constitution authorizing such action. 

But President Monroe experienced a change of view on this question, and his mes- 
sage to Congress on internal improvements, submitted May 4, 1822, in connection 
with his veto of the Cumberland road bill, marked an epoch in the constitutional 

"Annals of Congress, Eleventh Congress, third session, p. 79, February 18, 1818. 
•' Annals of Congress, Sixteenth Congi-ess, second session, p. 258. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UlSTITED STATES. 87 

history of the United States, as it gave us what has turned out to be an authoritative 
exposition of the meaning of one of the important clauses in the Constitution, and 
that in a sense different to that adhered to previously by Monroe himself, and by 
Madison and by Jefferson, and different to that underlying the general theory of the 
policy of the Government from its foundation; in harmony, on the other hand, with 
the views of Hamilton and Washington, and with the action of Jefferson himself, of 
Madison, and of the other Presidents — an exposition which was accepted by John 
Quincy Adams, by Andrew Jackson, and, generally speaking, accepted and acted 
upon by every succeeding President. This theory of constitutional interpretation is 
of especial importance to the object in hand, since, if it be correct, there can be no 
doubt whatever of the constitutionality of Federal appropriations to a national 
university. 

In his message-' Monroe declares that his own opinion as to the power of the Fed- 
eral Government over appropriations had undergone a profound change, and whereas 
he had formerly held that the Federal Government might not appropriate money 
for any other purposes than those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, he 
had now come to believe that the Federal Constitution in the first clause of section 8 
of the first article conferred upon the Federal Government "an unlimited power to 
raise money, and that in its appropriation Congress has a discretionary power 
restricted only by the duty to appropriate it for the purposes of common defense, 
and of general, not local, national, nor State benefit." In other words, that when 
the Constitution of the United States vests in Congress the power to lay and collect 
taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare, it gives to that Ijody 
power to raise any sum of money which it chooses, and to devote it to any purpose 
which in its judgment will promote the general welfare, subject to the limitation that 
it should not be the general, not the individual, for the national, not local benefit. 

In his message Monroe accepted the doctrine laid down by Alexander Hamilton 
in his celebrated report on manufactures made to Washington in 1791, "That there 
seems no room for doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning 
and agriculture, manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national 
council so far as regards the application of money." 

This is the only theory upon which all of the items in any of the general appro- 
priation bills passed by the Federal Government from the time of AVashington to 
that of McKinley can be justified. 

It is the only theory on which the actions of Jefferson, as distinct from his pro- 
nunciamentos, can find a constitutional basis. 

As said above, this doctrine was subsequently accepted, though under protest, by 
Andrew Jackson, having been fully adopted and acted upon by his predecessor, John 
Quincy Adams. 

This theory of the power of Congress over appropriations has been accepted by the 
great commentators on the Constitution almost without exception. 

Story raises the issue distinctly by asking the question: " May Congress appro- 
l^riate money for any other purposes than those pointed out in the enumeration of 
powers?" His answer was yes, and based upon the following three considerations: 

First. On the language contained in the first clause of the eighth section of the first 
article, which can not receive any reasonable interpretation except in accordance 
with this view. 

Second. — On the nature of the power conferred, rendering it highly expedient that 
such a power should be given to the Federal Government, and, indeed, making it 
almost impossible for anyone to organize and administer an efficient central govern- 
ment without such authority. 

"Compare Annals of Congress, Seventeenth Congress, first session. Vol. II, p. 1810." 



88 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Third. — On account of the early, constant, and decided maintenance of it by the 
Government and its functionaries, as well as by many of our ablest statesmen from 
the very commencement of the Constitution.^ 

He then declares (par. 1274) that Congress may appropriate to any purpose which 
is for the common defense and general welfare. 

This Adew was followed by Kent in his great Commentaries.'' 

One of the most recent and one of the greatest commentators on the Constitution, 
Judge Hare, takes the same view." He calls attention to a very interesting feature 
of this whole discussion, namely, that, owing to the principles of our constitutional 
law, it is almost impossible for the courts of the United States to decide this question, 
since it is primarily a question for the legislature and not for the courts. He speaks 
of Monroe's recantation, contained in the message above referred to (p. 245), and 
says that it was like that of Madison's of the earlier date, "a \-irtual adoption of the 
Hamiltonian theory that the power of the Congress over the Treasury is in effect 
absolute as to the appropriation of money for any object which in their judgment 
will conduce to the' defense of the country or promote its welfare. Such, in fact, has 
been the practice since the Government went into operation, and the right can 
scarcely be questioned in the face of a usage which will soon extend through an en- 
tire century." 

It would thus seem to be as well established as any constitutional doctrine can be 
that the Federal Government of the United States may appropriate money to any 
amount for any object which in its judgment will conduce to the common defense 
and will promote the general welfare. 

Surely under this head may be brought appropriations for a national university at 
the seat of government. The argument has sometimes also been advanced that the 
Federal Government might establish a national university under the authority given 
n the preamble, which declares that one of the purposes of ordaining the Constitu- 
tion of the United States was the promotion of the general welfare. This argu- 
ment deserves little a,ttention, and would not be mentioned by your reporter if it 
were not that one finds it oftentimes urged in support of this and other measures in 
the current literature of the time. Such an argument certainly deserves little con- 
sideration. In the first place the preamble is a mere introduction to the Constitution 
and does not confer any authority whatever. It simply enumerates certain purposes 
for which the powers subsequently conferred by the Constitution were vested in the 
Federal Government. In the second place, such an argument leads to a reductio ad 
absuz'dum, since, if the Federal Government receives from the preamble authority to 
promote the general welfare in any way which may seem to it good, the whole idea 
of a limited or delegated government becomes baseless. The other provisions of the 
Constitution which vest authority, which enumerate powers, are idle and meaning- 
less. 

Two other arguments in favor of the constitutionality of a national university de- 
serve, however, a brief mention. 

It is claimed, namely, that the Federal Government has received power by the 
Constitution to establish and maintain a civil service, exactly as it has authority to 
establish and maintain a military and naval service, and that it has the implied 
authority to establish a civil-service academy, exactly as it has established a military 
and a naval academy; and if it has authority to do all this, it alone, under the gen- 

^ Story: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2d edition, 
Boston, 1851, paragraph 977. 

''Commentaries on American Law; by James Kent, Boston, 1884, 18th edition, 
Vol. I, p. 268. 

"American Constitutional Law; J. Clark Hare, 1899, 2 vols. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 89 

erally accepted principles of constitutional interpretation, is to be the judge of what 
is an adequate civil-service academy and what is necessary to the establishment and 
equipment of such an institution. 

Now, a proper training of men for the civil service, at least for all the higher 
branches of the civil service, is a training in the sciences underlying the functions of 
such positions, and the best training in such sciences can be afforded in the modern 
world through the medium of a projierly equipped and properly managed university. 

This is recognized, for example, in Germany, where the imiversities are declaimed 
by law to be primarily academies for the preparation of men for the civil service of 
the country, and, to a smaller degree, in England, where attendance at the university 
is a prescribed condition for admission to certain examinations in the civil-service 
department. 

There is certainly much cogency in this argument, and it is difficult to refute it by 
any other argument than would overthrow the legitimacy of the academies which 
the Government has already established. 

The view above referred to, which was expressed in the constitutional convention 
by Gouverneur Morris, that the power to establish a national university at the seat of 
government is included in the grant of exclusive jurisdiction over the District of 
Columbia, would seem to be also a valid one. 

If Congress by the grant of power over the Territories may establish in those dis- 
tricts systems of education from the primary school up to and through the university, 
in districts which are being prepared for later admission as States, surely it may 
exercise the same authority in the District of Columbia, over which its jurisdiction 
in every respect whatever has been made absolute, subject t(j the restrictions of the 
Constitution, especially since thia District can not he regarded as in any sense on the 
road to admission as a State, and, if it is to have proper facilities for higher education 
at all, must obtain them from Congress. 

And if the Federal Government may establish a university as the head of the 
school system in the District of Columbia, there is no constitutional limit upon the 
manner in which that institution shall be organized, upon the amount of money 
which it may spend in its administration, or upon the purpose which such an insti- 
tution may be made to serve. 

Although the preceding considerations seem to have covered the ground in a gen- 
eral way, there is perhaps one other asjiect of the case, which, owing to its immediate 
bearing upon the special problem before us, should not be overlooked. That is the 
argument that the actual policy of the Federal Government in regard to education 
can not be justified constitutionally upon any other ground than would also justify 
the establishment of a national university. 

The Federal Government has considered education, almost from the first hour of 
its organization, as a subject with which it had to do, and whose promotion should 
be near its heart. The ordinance of 1787 bound the Congress to promote the inter- 
ests of education in the territory northwest of the Ohio River. And when this ordi- 
nance was reenacted, after the establishment of the Constitution, the same duty was 
taken upon itself by the Congress. In pursuance of this policy it ajapropriated from 
the public lands within the possession of the Government large tracts for the endow- 
ment of elementary and higher education. It is true that this referred at first only 
to the territory northwest of the Ohio River, but it was evident at a very early day 
that the people of the United Stfaes would not be content with the encouragement 
of education merely in the newer portions of the United States. The older States 
claimed, and with much justice, that all the States, under the Constitution, were 
entitled to the same treatment, and that if the newer States received assistance in the 
development of their education from national resources the older States were entitled 
to the same advantage. This argument seemed to be especially good, since the })ublic 



90 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

domain out of which this endowment was made had been acquired by the common 
sacrifice of the older as well as the newer States. Consequently, we find a steady 
tendency on the part of the National Government to make grants of land for tlie pro- 
motion of education within the States. 

This has become such a well-organized policy on the part of the Government that 
every decade, and, one may say, almost every year since the opening of the century, 
has seen considerable additions to the educational funds of the States from this source. 

The principle received, however, a very clear recognition in the celebrated land- 
grant act of 1862, by which to each State in the Union was granted 30,000 acres of 
land for each Senator and Representative in the Congress for the endowment of col- 
leges for instruction in agriculture and the mechanic arts. 

But President Monroe, in the celebrated message previously referred to, expressed 
a truth, which is coming to be recognized and acted upon more fully with every pass- 
ing decade, that no distinction can be taken between the appropriation of money 
raised by the sale of public lands and of that which arises from taxes, duties, 
imposts, and excises. And so the Federal Government, not content with granting 
lands by the act of March 2, 1887, granted the sum of $15,000 per year from the pro- 
ceeds of the sale of public lands to each State and Territory for the establishment of 
agricultural experiment stations. 

This policy was further followed in the act of August 30, 1890, for the. further 
endowment of the land-grant colleges by which the sum of $15,000 per year, to be 
increased by an addition of $1,000 more per year until the sum amounted to $25,000 
per year for each State and Territory, was voted by the Congress of the United States 
out of the proceeds of the sale of piiblic lands. If the Congress of the United States 
may appropriate $2,000,000 a year in cash from the Federal Treasury for the support 
of higher institutions in 45 States in the Union, surely it may appropriate a similar 
or greater amount for the support of a single institution in the District of Columbia. 

In view of the facts set forth in the above memorandum, it is the opinion of your 
reporter that there is a distinct grant in the Constitution of the United States to the 
Federal Governnrent of the authority to establish and maintain a national university. 

This opinion is based: 

(1) Upon the grant of exclusive jurisdiction for all purposes whatsoever over the 
District of Columbia, contained in the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the 
first article. 

(2) On the right of the Federal Government to establish a civil academy for the 
education of its civil servants on such a scale and of such a character as in the judg- 
ment of the Congress may adequately serve the purpose. 

(3) On the further ground that the constitutional history of the United States and 
the history of the Federal grants to education all go to show that our leading states- 
men, including many of those who sat in the constitutional convention, have from 
the beginning to the present time maintained the view that such power was con- 
ferred upon the Federal Government. 

(4) Upon the ground that the actual course of legislation by the Federal Govern- 
ment in the endowment of education can be justified only on the same principles as 
will justify, constitutionally speaking, the establishment and maintenance of a national 
university. 

(5) On the further ground that the first clause of the eighth section of the first 
article confers upon the Federal Government th^ distinct authority to appropriate 
money for any purpose which in their judgment provides for the common defense 
and promotes the general welfare; and that if in the judgment of the Federal Con- 
gress the establishment and maintenance of a national university would be in fur- 
therance of the general welfare, then the authority to take such action is clearly and 
distinctly conferred by this clause. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. • 91 



A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY. 

To the New York Times Saturday Review: 

Having followed for years with deep interest the movement in behalf of a Univer- 
sity of the United States at Washington, and bearing in mind the high and worthy 
purpose which inspired not only its great projector, the Father of His Country him- 
self, but its many able advocates in Congress and in the highest ranks of professional 
a-nd private life for a quarter of a century past, I am inclined to question the right 
to characterize, as an editorial in The New York Times Saturday Review has recently 
done, the opinions sustained by, the National Educational Association on the subject 
as either crude or unworthy of consideration, and I would beg the privilege of saying 
a word in support of the vote by which the association rejected the proposals of its 
special committee of fifteen. 

I may say in the first place that I do not think that the action of the association 
itself, or of its committee of fifteen, ought to be taken too seriously. If it is ques- 
tionable whether the National Educational Association, composed of teachers of all 
grades, and others engaged in education as a livelihood, is a body competent to speak 
for the educated public of this country, the same doubt applies quite as truly to the 
select committee of " prominent presidents of universities," etc. If, in the first case, 
there is supposably a lack of the broadest culture and most comprehensive view of a 
national interest like this, on the other hand there is certainly supposable a possible, 
even though unconscious, motive of jealousy and rivalry which resents the prospect 
of a possibly successful competitor for the highest educational dignity and prestige of 
this country. Even the members of the committee of fifteen are human, and the 
public are sufficiently aware of the high ambitioiis cherished by the institutions they 
represent. 

When these are met T^y the proposition to establish in America a national univer- 
sity, with all that that name implies, of unlimited resources, supported by the 
worthiest pride and ambition of the whole land, and of a consequent dignity and 
influence superior to that of any of the private or sectional institutions, however ably 
endowed and equipped, it is not strange, that they do not enthusiastically welcome 
such a rival. 

For these reasons I do not feel that the action of either party in this instance is to 
b3 regarded as in any sense an adequate or final expression of American sentiment in 
the matter. I wish, in justification of the association, to offer some reflections on the 
substance of the rejected resolutions themselves. 

I take it for granted that the general reading public are aware that George Wash- 
ington himself left as a parting legacy to the country a small fund endowing a national 
university to be located at the capital, and that in the plan of the District of Colum- 
bia, drawn by Washington's engineer, 1' Enfant, there is a site set apart and distinctly 
designated as that of the university. This site has been used by the Government 
until quite recently for the Naval Observatorj', and now lies practically deserted in 
the midst of unoccupied lands at the western extremity of the great park reservations 
of the city. With this is to be remembered the fact that for years there has existed 
in Congress a Senate committee to establish the University of the United States (or 
U. S. ) . The passage by Congress of the bill long in the hands of its committee, for 
the establishment of the University of the United States, carrying with it the resto- 
ration of the original site chosen for the purpose by Washington, would constitute 
the initial act in establishing truly the national university itself, leaving to the 
country and its many millionaires the granii work of furnishing a sufficient 
endowment. 

In view of the sentiment of gratitude and of respect for Washington's desire, 
which although fruitless as yet of actual results has for a century been kept alive 



92 ■ UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES, 

both in Congress and in the pubUc heart, it seems to come with ill grace from the 
committee of "prominent presidents," etc., to report that "the Government is not 
called upon to maintain at the capital a university in the ordinary sense of the term." 
If not called upon bj^ the fact of Congress accepting a legacy for the purpose and 
maintaining a standing committee for this as a national civil need, it would seem 
modest at least in the committee to admit the existence of a certain "obligation of 
nobility," which, if not capable of legal enforcement, is worthy of support. It is 
quite true, I suppose, that the governments of the several States are not "called 
upon" to endow the several State universities, which nevertheless, as the head or 
culmination of their respective State educational systems, have become a matter of 
very worthy State pride and emulation, and whose usefulness no one calls in ques- 
tion. I do not know that the governor of Massachusetts is "called upon" any 
longer by formal statute to attend, escorted by a body of troops, the annual com- 
mencement of Harvard College, but I have not noticed any protest by President 
Eliot against this assumption on the part of the State, or against its political inter- 
ference in so far with the affairs of Harvard University. It will certainly remain a 
difficult point to settle Avhy, if a State's educational system should culminate in its 
university, with its powers of granting degrees, etc., the entire educational system of 
the United States should not as a logical result culminate in a single university, in 
which the nation's resources for the highest research and intelligent production 
should be centered and systematized, and to which should accrue the highest intel- 
lectual dignity and honor. If it is legitimate for the Government to maintain 
national schools for ^ar at West Point and Annapolis, it is legitimate to maintain 
its highest school for the arts of peace and civilization at the capital, provided this 
can be done on a truly national scale and by methods in keeping with the unique 
scope and dignity of the institution. We do not hear of political scandals marring 
the dignity and purity of the scholarly records of the Smithsonian Institution or of 
the Library of Congress. If there were constitutional objections to the establish- 
ment of a university of the United States at the capital, would George Washington 
himself have made the solemn legacy to the nation for the purpose, and would Con- 
gress all these years have tolerated the existence of a standing committee on the 
subject of a national university? 

But the further and the vital defect in the resolutions of the committee consists in 
its only too manifest purpose, " to throw a sop to Cerberus" and to quiet this agita- 
tion for a formidable rival to existing universities by making it appear that the sub- 
stitute they offer is something quite as good. The committee is quite willing to 
please the patriotic sentiment by recognizing " an institution in Washington as a 
memorial to George Washington, which shall be maintained to promote the advanced 
study of the sciences and liberal arts." Thej' are quite willing the Women's George 
Washington Memorial Association shall erect a building and that the Washington 
Academy of Science, a self-constituted association of scientific men employed in the 
departments in Washington, shall cooperate in securing facilities for advanced study 
in tlie department's collections, etc. But the members of the committee of fifteen 
must be well aware that the scope of studies offered in any or all of these facilities of 
the departments of Washington is anything but one worthj' of a true university, or 
that would receive respectful recognition in any of the government universities abroad. 
The list of opportunities sounds large, and the name attached pleases the public 
emotion, but it would be little less than fraudulent to attempt to pawn off on the 
people such a plan for research in the scientific departments in Washington as con- 
stituting a true university, or such a crowning institution of the country's learning 
as Washington had in mind. At most the so-called facilities or aids to promote 
advanced studies consist of those almost exclusively in the departments of natural 
science. 



UISrrVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 93 

In such departments of university study as history, the ancient and modern Ian-, 
guages, literature, philosophy, ethics, and the fine arts, not to speak of the three 
professions, law, medicine, and theology, I do not know of any provisions especially 
available in the Government departments at Washington which are not equallj^ so in 
any large city of the Union, so that the so-called Washington Memorial Institution 
resolves itself into merely an opportunity for studying some branches of jihysics, 
biology, geology, and ethnology, with the use of the Government's collection (for 
the Government's "support or control" in the matter, which of course includes the 
assistance of the savants in the employment of the Government, is according to reso- 
lutions expressly excluded) . To call such an institution a ' ' university in the ordinary 
sense of the term " was indeed beyond the conscientious ability of the committee of 
fifteen, but to propose such a scheme to the association or to the American people as 
somehow sufficient to meet the desire of carrying out Washington's noble purpose 
was hardly consistent with an intelligent and sincere treatment of the subject under 
consideration. To establish any educational institution at the capital iia the name 
and in the memory of Washington which would be so restricted in the scoj^e of 
studies as to lay no claim to being a true university, which could receive no support 
from the Government, and in fact offer little if anything more than is procurable 
at the jjresent moment by any intelligent investigator frequenting the collections or 
libraries in ^Vashington, seems unworthy of being associated with the sincere and 
dignified purpose cherished so long of establishing truly a university of the United 
States in fulfillment of Washington's own great ideal. To set up any mock institu- 
tion or otherwise to trifle with the sacred impulse of the American people is unwor- 
thy of the true friends of American education. To condemn outright the plan of a 
national university, and give reasons for doing so, in the face of our ideal of free 
education for. a free people, which implies education "for the people by the people " — 
this would be a fair way of meeting the question at hand, leaving the people to decide. 
To temporize by offering to the people something which seems to be that which it 
truly is not, is not conducive to any good end, and the action of the National Educa- 
tional Association in discovering this and voting accordingly is not to be summarily 
set aside as either crude, unscholarly, or intemperate. 

Frank Sewall. 

Coventry Hall, Yorl\ Me., August 14, 1901. 



THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION. 

To the Editor of the Evening Star: 

Now that the injunction of secrecy regarding Mr. Carnegie's munificent endowment 
is removed by the publication of the names of the proposed incorporators and trus- 
tees, and of the plan of organization, it will, I trust, not be deemed impertinent for 
the friends of the higher education in this country to express their minds freely in 
regard to the proposed methods of employing so generous a provision. 

First, I think the readers of the preliminary annomicement regarding the proposed 
institution must have been struck with the apologetic tone in which the project was 
mentioned, as if there existed somewhere a monopoly of education or of its honors 
and emoluments in this country which even an institution at Washington, "in the 
spirit of Washington," must take care not to infringe upon. One might suppose that 
even a remnant of the spirit of jealousy between the "leading universities " and the 
projected University of the United States, which so unhappily appeared during the 
last summer, had in some way affected Mr. Carnegie or his advisers, in view of the 
repeated assurances that "it is not intended that the enterprise shall interfere with 
or hinder existing institutions!" It is difficult to see why there should be this 



94 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

.peculiar deference, since such assurances have not been necessary heretofore when 
large endowments have been furnished for educational purposes. 

Secondly, the friends of the long-cherished project of a University of the United 
States to be established by the Government in fulfillment of Washington's purpose 
and legacy, for which a bill is now before Congress, will have been struck by the 
careful insistence that the proposed institution is "not to be in any sense a uni- 
versity!" One would naturally inquire "Why not?" And glancing over the pro- 
posed plan now published, no sufficient reason appears for so scrupulously avoiding 
this honorable title. A university is supposed to mean an institution designed to 
embrace all kinds of learning and to promote universal culture. It is usual to dis- 
tinguish such an institution from one restricted to one or more special lines of work. 
To say that the proposed institution is not "in any sense " a university seems, there- 
fore, to imply a limitation of Mr. Carnegie's liberality, which is uncalled for. 

If the purpose were to avoid any such connection with the Government or with 
political control as Avould be implied by the title "University of the United States," 
the question arises, Was this "in the spirit of Washington," oris it in a spirit of 
true patriotism or honor to the Republic? We are informed that Mr. Carnegie's first 
intention was to make this distinctly a Government institution, and we admire his 
patriotism in so intending, and question the validity of those grounds on which he 
was induced to change his mind. It was a magnificent declaration of good faith in 
the Republic and of honor to the memory of its illustrious founder. It would have 
provided the way not only to the systematizing and bringing into unity all the pres- 
ent resources of the Government for educational purposes, but for crowning them 
Avith the great agencies for universal culture which they necessarily lack. 

Probably the most efficient and the most renowned scientific institution of to-day 
is the Reichsanstalt, or the Imperial Institute of Physics and Technics, at Charlot- 
tenburg, Prussia, of which Von Helmholz was the late president. Its plant consists 
of an adequate group of buildings and equipments costing $100,000, and its regular 
maintenance in its two departments of physical research and of industrial applica- 
tion in technics is furnished by the Imperial Government at an annual expense of 
about ?400,000. Can America not trust its Congress as safely as Germany its parlia- 
ment? On the other hand, if government control is detrimental to good work and 
the advancement of knowledge, how comes it that one of the specific objects of the 
institute shall be to "enable students to avail themselves of the various museums, 
libraries, laboratories, and other kindred institutions of the several departments of 
the Government," and why should these governmental resources have been so elo- 
quently dwelt upon as offering extraordinary opportunities for the pursuit of learn- 
ing "in Washington?" 

Happily, however, these unworthy and rather humiliating limitations of the pro- 
jected institution belong rather to the remarks about the project by those supposed 
to be in the confidence of its founder than to the plan and scope of the institute as 
officially set forth. For while the several "aims," as enumerated in Dr. Walcott's 
recent statement, would seem to imply rather a special college of physical science, and 
a fund for subsidizing needy professorships in colleges throughout the country, and 
even for supporting students abroad, which two purposes were certainly not conceived 
"in the spirit of Washington's" bequest, happily the opening statement is left broad 
enough to include the departments of a truly universal culture, of which the scientific 
research and invention so emphasized in the "aims" is but a single and by no means 
the most important feature. "To encourage investigation, research, and discovery, 
and the application of knowledge to the improvement of mankind in the broadest 
and most liberal manner" means the employment of resources far exceeding those 
embraced in the scientific departments of the Government in Washington. It means 
the encouragement of learning in philosophy, history, ethics, philology, literature, 
and the fine arts, for which the Government departments, except in an accidental 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 95 

way, make no provision. And it is not in these, more tlian in the advancement of 
physical science, that it would seem Mr. Carnegie's munificence might profitably be 
employed, because here is the greatest need. For invaluable as are the scientific 
researches of the (irovernment and their applied results, we are not aware of there 
being any want of means for carrying out any scheme of real importance which the 
Government can not lawfully supply. Proposals for an elaborate bureau of standaixis 
of weights and measures, the object for Avhich the famous Reichsanstalt was primarily 
established in Germany, are already before Congress. It does not seem necessary to 
duplicate any of the work of the Smithsonian Institution nor to add to the magnificent 
library provisions of the capital, for an important feature of which we are already 
indebted to Mr. Carnegie. If there be such a rival intention, then it would seem to 
be here that apologies are necessary or assurances of "noninterfering" purposes 
rather than to the universities. And, therefore, the question urges itself. Why should 
not the funds be employed for the supplying of these real defects rather than in dupli- 
cating the present facilities for universal learning in Washington? Why should not 
the university idea be put forward, rather than in the background, or the ideal and 
moral side of human culture be given its place, at least, beside the physical? That 
the statement of purpose is broad enough to admit yet of the fullest development of 
this side of our national culture under Mr. Carnegie's munificence is matter for con- 
gratulation among the friends of liberal culture, and the hope may be indulged that 
through the wise direction of its chosen trustees the Carnegie Institute may develop, 
under whatsoever name, into the noble symmetry and complete use of a true university. 

Frank Sewall. . 



LETTER OF HON. JOHN W. HOYT TO THE WASHINGTON POST, REVIEWING 
A COMMUNICATION OF JULY 11, 1901, ON "PLANS FOR A UNIVERSITY," 
BY HON. ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL. 

Editor Post: 

In your issue of July 11 appeared a lengthy article, under the heading "Plans for 
University," so remarkable for erroneous and misleading statements, to say nothing 
of bad logic, as to demand a brief review in the interest of a great cause. 

The article opens with a reference to the "rejection" of the report of the "com- 
mittee of fifteen" on a national university by the national council of the National 
Educational Association, on the 9th instant, at Detroit. The fact is, that the report 
was received, as it could not help being, and that the council, in receiving it, resolved 
that "while we express our appreciation of their (the committee's) labors, we are 
not prepared to abandon the position taken by the National Educational Association 
in favor of a national university. ' ' The resolution might have described this position 
as having been taken by the association three times unanimously, for such is the fact. 

In the second place, the article states that the committee of fifteen had endeavored 
"to determine the best means for the establishment of a governmental university." 
The fact is that the committee, so far from doing this, early decided against any such 
institution. 

In the third place, it is said that the committee of fifteen "heartily indorsed the 
plan proposed by the members of the George Washington Memorial Association 
and the Washington Academy of Sciences to establish a national university." The 
fact is, the committee indorsed no such plan, for neither the association nor the 
academy just named have any plan for a national university. The report of the com- 
mittee of fifteen says: " In the year 1901 the certificates of incorporation of the 
George Washington Memorial Association was amended in due legal form, and all 
mention of a national university was ommitted from the statement of its purposes." 
In the July number of the Eeview of Reviews, Prof. Nicholas Murray Butler, of 



96 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Columbia University, a member of the committee of fifteen and trustee of the 
Washington Memorial Institution, ■writing of this institution, a corporation repre- 
senting the association and academy just mentioned, and indorsed by the committee 
of fifteen as a permanent substitute for the national university, says: " It will be an 
aid and adjunct to universities, but not a university, or a torso of one," and again: 
" The Washington Memorial Institution is in no sense a university." 

Even more remarkable are statements ascribed to Alexander Graham Bell. He 
says: " The association (Nat;onal Educational) is a great organization, and contains 
representatives from everj^ portion of the country. It is hardly possible that all 
these people know what Congress would do or has done in the matter of the estab- 
lishment of a university supported by the Government." To say nothing of this 
gratuitous reflection upon the intelligence of the leading educators of the country, the 
argument is that, because they do not reside in Washington they are unacquainted 
with Congressional legislation on education. From what follows, it would appear 
that Professor Bell himself is not fully acquainted therewith. 

Further on, he says: "The university (the Washington Memorial Institution, 
which, according to Professor Butler, is in no sense a university), which will !;« 
established here in the fall, will be the most stupendous undertaking and the most 
far-reaching institution that has ever been conceived by man;" and again, "its 
scope will be absolutely unlimited;" and again, "it goes far beyond the dreams of 
the people who have worked from time to time for the establishment of such an 
institution " (a true national university ) . 

The truth is, every object of the VV^ashiugton Memorial Institution is provided for 
by the bills introduced into Congress through the national university committee, 
and, indeed, the plans of the institution fall far short of these of the national univer- 
sity committee. When it is considered that the institution will practically be con- 
fined to a verj^ limited utilization of the Government's scientific collections at 
Washington, one is indeed lost in wonder at its contemplation. Tlie statement of 
Professor Bell, in this regard, is too absurd for further consideration. 

Again he says: "The action of Congress has settled once and for all time the proj- 
ect to establish a Government university. It can notbe cione." And why? Because, 
forsooth, when Congress had under consideration the disposition of James Smith- 
son's bequest for "the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men," it was held 
by some members of the National Legislature that this language did not warrant the 
utilization of Smithson's money through a national university. Therefore, says 
Professor Bell, Congress is estopped from ever appropriating any money for a 
national university. If this be logic, the definition of the term will have to be 
changed. 

Further he says: "Learned statesmen came to the conclusion that the use of the 
money (Smithson's) and the appropriation of other money for educational purposes 
was unconstitutional and could not be considered." What memories these "learned 
statesmen" must have had to forget the existence, almost under the shadow of the 
Capitol, of the United States Military and Naval academies, and how they must have 
turned in their graves when the Morrill bill was passed by Congress appropriating 
millions of dollars for the establishment and maintenance in all the States and Terri- 
tories of colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts. Yet, according to Professor 
Bell, Congress never has done and never can do anything for education. 

It is inconceivable that Professor Bell could have expressed the opinions attributed 
to him in the article, although they are all quoted. 

In this connection it should be stated that the proposition to incorporate a manda- 
tory provision for a true national university in the Federal Constitution was defeated 
by only one vote, and this because it was agreed that the plenary power of Congress 
over the District of Columbia gave it full power to establish such an institution, and 
it was desired not to burden the Constitution with unnecessary provisions. Professor 



UJ^IVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 97 

Bell must also know that the committee of fifteen itself in its report expressly 
admitted the constitutionality of a national university. 

In the course of the article Professor Bell says also: "The Constitution provides 
that Congress can appropriate money from the public funds to promote the progress 
of science and the useful arts." The Constitution does say (Article I, section 8) that 
Congress shall have power "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," 
but how? "By securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive 
right to their respective writings and discoveries. ' ' It thus appears that the authority 
for the enactment of patent and copyright legislation, with which the Smithsonian 
Institution has nothing to do, is declared by a regent of the institution to have been 
the warrant for its establishment. 

There is one featui'e of the article, however, which deserves commendation, and 
that is the naivete with which Professor Bell admits the real reason for the adverse 
report of the committee of fifteen and of the opposition in general to a national uni- 
versity. He says: "This (a national university) would completely offset the old 
universities already established in this country. The degrees from a national uni- 
versity would be much sought after, and consequently all the other universities are 
opposed to the establishment of such an institution." The friends of the national 
university are indebted to Professor Bell for this admission, and it is to be regretted that 
the committee of fifteen were not equally honest in the statement of their reasons 
for opposition to any national university. As for "all the other universities" oppos- 
ing a national university, it is sufiicient to state as a matter of fact that the only uni- 
versities opposing a national university are Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the 
University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago having until lately stood for 
it strongly, and now very certainly not being fully satisfied with the report of the 
committee of fifteen. The fact is that the other leading colleges and universities 
of the country to the number of some 250, including all the State universities but 
one, have distinctly declared in favor of the proposed university of the United States, 
of whose establishment the little coterie of universities above named are jealous 
without cause. 

Is it any wonder that the National Educational Association, at its annual lousiness 
meeting in Detroit on the 11th instant, in the face of the disingenuous report of the 
committee of fifteen, resolved by an overwhelming vote, "That this association 
hereby reaffirms its former declaration in favor of the establishment by the National 
Government of a national university, devoted not to collegiate but to true university 
work." 

In conclusion, I feel bound to say: 

(1) That the only ideas in the Washington memorial institution worth anything 
were borrowed from and are more completely represented by the national university 
committee, which now includes over 400 of the most eminent men of the nation. 

(2) That in view of all that has been done and' is doing to realize the great ideas 
of Washington, his comf)atriots and successors, as well as by the aljlest of scholars 
and statesmen in recent years, it is surpiising that even a few scientific men of AVash- 
ington, heretofore warm indorsers of the national university enterprise, have so easily 
given up a movement but temporarily blocked by a few favorably circumstanced 
corrupt oflicials and private schemers. 

(3) That it is yet more astonishing that the George Washington Memorial Asso- 
ciation, abandoning the great ideal of AVashington, have so readily surrendered, 
turning over the money collected "for the erection of the administration building of 
the University of the United States" to an institution wholly inadequate to the 
demands of the nation, and now practically in control of men who are firmly opposed 
to anything in the form of a national university, and S(*me of whom, having plotted 
against it from the beginning of the present university movement, have devised this 
present specious scheme as a means of defeating it altogether. 

S. Rep. 9i5 7 



98 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE PROPOSED NATIONAL UNIVERSITY.^ 

By Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee. 
[From Science cf October 4, 1901.1 

Ttie paper by Hon. Charles D. Walcott, Director of the United States Geological 
Survey, published in Science for June 28, 1901, then issued in a separate pamphlet, 
and now kindly brought to my notice by the author, disposes of the national univer- 
sity movement in the following summary manner: 

"But Congress has always looked on the scheme with suspicion, and not one of 
the various bills offered was ever acted upon by the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives. The trend of opinion has been and is that the Government should not found 
a national university in the sense suggested by Washington and his followers. ' ' 

At first I thought to let these statements pass without notice, believing that in course 
of time they would correct themselves. But on reflection I conclude to make a com- 
prehensive review of them, as also some comments on the "memorial" scheme so 
fully set forth in connection therewith, and finally to point out some of the special 
functions of the proposed national university wdiich so deeply concerned Washington, 
but which seem never to have been duly considered by those now engaged in pro- 
moting an enterprise which its projectors intend shall defeat the establishment of 
such university altogether. 

ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS. 

Of the nonpassage of bills I will'speak further on. Let us, first of all, see how far 
this declaration concerning the attitude of Congress accords with the real facts in the 
case. 

To begin with the House, the only action ever taken by that body on the subject 
of a national university was affirmative and unanimous. The National Educational 
Association, having first by a unanimous vote, at Trenton, N. J., in 1869, declared a 
great American university to be "a leading want of American education," and 
appointed a ' ' committee consisting of one member from each of the States * * * 
to take the whole matter under consideration, ' ' and to report thereon, and having 
twice unanimously adopted the affirmative reports of said committee (at Cleveland, 
in 1870, and at St. Louis, in 1871), then by unanimous vote created a permanent 
committee to prepare and offer to Congress a bill to establish a national university. 

The committee embraced, besides the chairman, ex-President Thomas Hill, of 
Harvard, Editor Godkin, of The Nation; State Superintendent Wickersham, of Penn- 
sylvania; Dr. Barnas Sears, of Virginia; Col. D. F. Boyd, president of the University 
of Louisiana; President Daniel Read, of the University of Missouri; Dr. W. F. Phelps, 
president State Normal School, Winona, Minn.: ex-Governor A. C. Gibbs, of Oregon; 
Hon. Newton Batemay, superintendent of public nstruction, of Illinois; Superin- 
tendent Emerson E. White, president-elect of the National Educational Association; 
Gen. John Eaton, United States Commissioner of Education; Dr. Joseph Henry, 
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and president of the National Academy of 
Sciences; Dr. J. Lawrence Smith, of Kentucky, president of the American Associa- 
tion for the Advancement of Science; and Dr. Samuel Elliot, of Connecticut, presi- 
dent of the American Social Science Association. 

The bill prepared by these men was introduced in the House during the last session 
of the Forty-second Congress and referred to the Committee on Education, of which 

''A review of Hon. Chas. Dt Walcott's paper on "Relations of the General Gov- 
ernment to higher education and research." 



UlSriVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 99 

Chairman Perce, of Mississippi, and Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts, were prominent 
members, and near the end of the said session was unanimously returned to the 
House with a strong report, of which the following is the closing passage: 

"If, then, it be true, as the committee has briefly endeavored to show, that our 
country is at present wanting in the facilities essential to the highest culture in many 
departments of learning; and if it be true that a central university, besides meeting 
this demand, would quicken, strengthen, and systematize the schools of the country 
from the lowest to the highest; that it would increase the amount and the love of 
pure learning, now so little appreciated by our people, and so improve the intellectual 
and social status of the nation; that it would tend to homogeneity of sentiment, and 
thus strengthen the unity and patriotism of the people; that by gathering at its seat 
distinguished savants, not only of our own but of other lands, it would eventually 
make our national capital the intellectual center of the world, and so help the United 
States to rank fii'st and highest among the enlightened nations of the earth — then is 
it manifestly the <luty of Congress to establish and amply endow such a university at 
the earliest possible day. 

"The committee therefore affirm their approval of the bill and recommend its pas- 
sage by the House." 

It is believed that the success of the university measure in some proper form then 
required only that uninterrupted attention which, unhappily, a change of circum- 
stances rendered it impossible for its friends to give. The opinion of the National 
Educational Association in favor of the establishment of a national university was 
reaffirmed by unanimous vote at its annual meeting held in Detroit on August 6, 1874, 
and, as seen by its recent declarations in the same place, has endured with the years. 

2. In 1890, when Senator George F. Edmunds introduced his " Bill to establish the 
universit}' of the United States," and moved its reference to a special committee, no 
opposition was made. Had he retained his physical vigor he would doubtless have 
made his leadership in the Senate effective ere this. 

3. At the Senate's session of August 3, 1892, when Senator Proctor presented the 
" Memorial in regard to a national university " by John W. Hoyt, and moved that it 
be printed and referred, Senator Sherman moved the further printing of 5,000 extra 
copies, which was ordered unanimouslj^; also, that at a subsequent session other 
thousands of extra copies were ordered printed without objection. 

4. Although at the opening of the Fifty-second Congress Senator Proctor, whose 
interest was very positive, assumed the chairuianship by request, he was occupied 
with important measures already in hand, and submitted his sterling and unanimous 
report so late in the Congress that other matters prevented its consideration. The 
committee was a strong one and would have been potential could they early have 
taken it in hand, as they would have done a question of commerce, finance, or war. 
The Senate Avas read}'. 

5. When the Senate Committee to Establish the University of the United States 
was made a "standing" committee there was no opposition to the change. 

6. In the Fifty-third Congress, when Senator Hunton was chairman of the com- 
mittee, he Avas so circumstanced that his able report (also unanimous) could not be 
prepared, submitted, and supported, as it was, by his own and other able speeches, 
until the time had come when appropriation bills had the right of way and a single 
negative vote could again prevent action by the Senate. 

7. It was not until during the first session of the Fifty-fourth Congress, when the 
determination of the executive council of the national university committee had 
met with assurances of cooperation from all parts of the country, and the council, 
with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding and but one of its fifteen mem- 
bers absent, gave three protracted sessions to the framing of a neAV bill, that there 
appeared the first sign of opposition, either in or out of Congress. 



100 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

The members of the executive council at that time were these: 

The Hon. Melville \V. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States; ex-United States 
Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont; Dr. William Pepper, ex-provost of the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania; Hon. Andrew D. White, ex-president of Cornell University, 
ambassador to Germany; ex-Governor John Lee Carroll, of Maryland, general -presi- 
dent Society of Sons of the Revolution; Gen. Horace Porter, president-general Society 
of Sons of the American Revolution, ambassador to France; ex-United States Senator 
Eppa Hunton, of Virginia; ex-United States Senator A. H. Garland, late Attorney- 
General of United States; ex-United States Senator J. B. Henderson; Col. Wilbur R. 
Smith, of Kentucky University; Gen. John Eaton, ex-United States Commissioner of 
Education; Hon. Gardiner G. Hubbard, president National Geographic Society ; Prof. 
Simon Newcomb, director of the Nautical Almanac, U. S. Navy; Hon. John A. Kasson, 
ex-United States minister to Austria and Germany; Hon. Oscar S. Sti'aus, ex-United 
States minister to Turkey ; G. Brown Goode, assistant secretary Smithsonian Institu- 
tion; ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, chairman National University Committee. (In the 
places of Messrs. Pepper, Hubbard, Garland, and Goode, since deceased, there are 
now: Hon. H. A. Herbert, ex-Secretary of the Navy; Dr. S. P. Langley, Secretary of 
the Smithsonian Institution; Lieut. Gen. Nelson A. Miles, commanding the Army.) 

The bill was unanimously approved by the other distinguished members of the 
national university committee, and gave promise of early success. President David 
Starr Jordan, of Leland Stanford Junior University, wrote: "Put it through without 
the change of a punctuation point." Its passage was advocated in person, before the 
Senate university committee,' by ex-Senator George F. Edmunds; ex-Provost William 
Pepper, of the University of Pennsylvania; Prof. Simon Newcomb, Gen. John Eaton, 
Hon. Gardiner G. Hubbard, Hon. John A. Kasson, ex-Governor John Lee Carroll, 
Hon. Andrew D. White, and John W. Hoyt; and on March .10, 1806, Senator Kyle, 
chairman, submitted an affirmative report, with the said supporting arguments, and 
with over 300 letters from members of the national-university committee, and other 
papers supporting the university proposition. It was an eminently satisfactory 
report of 156 printed pages, and for a time was supposed to be without dissent from 
any member. Adverse influences from denominational and other sources had been 
at work, however, so that a month later a brief minority report was submitted, with 
opposing letters from the presidents of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the University 
of Pennsylvania, and five or six small colleges, all denominational. Even with their 
frieiids it was beyond comprehension how the minority were willing to appear with 
so weak a showing. 

For the rest, it is sufficient to say that the rule of courtesy which allowed the 
minority time to get ready, the printing of affirmative reports, and other causes, 
resulted in a postponement of action by the chairman of the Senate committee until 
the following session of Congress. 

8. The "Reply to views of the minority," by the chairman of the national univer- 
sity committee, when submitted to the Senate by Chairman Kyle, with many addi- 
tional letters of indorsement from distinguished friends of the measure, was promptly 
received by the Senate and ordered printed. 

9. At the opening of the second session of the Fifty-fourth Congress papers in sup- 
port of the national-university proposition, by Prof. William H. H. Phillips, of South 
Dakota, and President David Starr Jordan, of Leland Stanford Junior University, 
were, upon motion of Senator Kyle, ordered printed by the Senate, without dissent. 

10. Before the Senate committee's report could be conveniently called up in the 
second session of the Fifty-fourth Congress Chairman Kyle was called to his distant 
home, and, although confidently expected from week to week, so that neither Sena- 
tor Sherman, who was next on the committee list, nor any other member thought it 
fit to act in his stead, he did not actually return until within three days of the end 
of that Congress. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 101 

11. Upon the opening of the Fifty-fifth Congress the appointment of Senator Wel- 
hngton, of Maryland, to the chairmanship was a surprise to the national-university 
committee, because of assurances touching the continuous and earnest work of Sena- 
tor Kyle. It also proved to be without result [during said Congress]. 

12. * * * There was at last a meeting of the committee, during the first session 
of the Fifty-sixth Congress, and an agreement, without dissent, upon the new bill 
offered by Senator Depew with the approval of the national university committee. 
A report was also made ready * * * but never submitted. 

Such is a brief history of both Senatorial and committee action on the subject of a 
national university during the past few years. It proves unmistakably that the talk 
of "suspicion " on the part of Congress is without so much as the shadow of a founda- 
tion—that there has been none but afiirmative action from first to last; that Con- 
gress has in fact done everything that was ever asked of it in either House; and that 
in nearly, if not in every, case such affirmative action has been prompt and unani- 
mous. There have been trying delays, but those of the last decade are not chargeable 
to the Senate, but to individual members of its university committee. * * * 

"the trend of opinion." 

After the showing thus made of the friendly attitude of Congress first, last, and 
always; of the views of leading men of the nation in all the great pursuits, including 
the heads of all but five or six of the colleges and universities appealed to; and, last 
of all, the marked demonstration again made by the National Educational Associa- 
tion at Detroit, it is hardly worth while to spend a moment discussing the " trend of 
public opinion." Dr. Walcott should know that it " has been and is, that the Gov- 
ernment ' ' should ' ' found a national university, ' ' and that, too, ' ' in the sense suggested 
by Washington and his followers." I mean in the broad sense and for the accom- 
plishment of the great ends he had in view. There have been such advances in 
science and such development of educational institutions since his day as he could 
not foresee and as would necessitate a different sort of university work in some 
respects from that of his day, and yet not different in that it Was to be and is to be 
the highest possible, and that, too, with help rather than hindrance of all other 
institutions, and with a fulfilment of special offices to which it alone would be com- 
petent, as I shall show at the end of this review. The Depew bill (last before the 
Senate), like its forerunners, makes sure of the national university's limitation to 
this high field. 

OPPOSITION BECAUSE OF MISCONCEPTIONS. 

There were, in 1896, a few opposing Senators, but, since none of them have offered 
valid reasons for negative action (see "Reply"), we are not Avithout hope that they 
will yet concur. If they are endowers, graduates, or patrons of some half dozen 
leading universities, it is difficult to believe that on this account and right here in 
the midst of unparalleled facilities for a true university — facilities provided at a cost 
of some 140,000,000 to the whole people of the country, and maintained and utilized 
at a cost of several millions annually — they would be glad to prevent the establish- 
ment of an institution which would at once do honor to the nation and be a practical 
friend of their favorites. Surely any such Senators will upon reflection come to 
agree with the multitude of statesmen and scholars of a hundred years, the views of 
whom are so emphatically reaffirmed by Ambassador Andrew D. White, who just 
now again says, from Berlin: "It would in many ways make itself helpful to every 
school, college, and university in the land;" and by President Harper, of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, when he wrote me not very long ago: "I have always believed 
in such an institution and will continue to believe in it. There is everything to be 
gained and nothing to be lost." They will see with Dr. Cattell, the able editor of 
Science, that "all the arguments which have been urged against the establishment 



102 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

of a national university turn out to be in its favor." Nay, more, it is hard to believe 
that any right-minded, unbiased Senator or Representative will fail at length to 
see that such an institution as is planned by the national university committee 
would also serve to give the United States a new dignity and importance among the 
nations. 

Under this head should also be embraced all friends of the national university 
movement who, whether they have done aught to advance it or not, or have 
inquired into the causes of delay, are now tired of waiting for the grand result, and 
have been induced to lend their influence to a scheme whose origination and 
inauguration have been with those who intend that it shall prevent the establishment 
of the university. Thej^, too, will surely right themselves when rightly informed. 

Of course the hindrances common to great movements for intellectual advance- 
ment have not been wanting in this one; such as the extent to which legislators 
accounted the best are often absorbed in questions that concern industiial develop- 
ment, commerce, finance, and international differences involving war — matters all of 
them so related, moreover, to the ascendencj^ of political parties as at times to fill 
the whole field of vision; causes such as the growing passion for increase of wealth 
and power as means of supremacy among the nations, and which leave out of con- 
sideration the no less necessary and still higher conditions of a superior civilization; 
such, indeed, as lie in a spirit of denominational ambition, which in some of the 
churches is stronger than the spirit of religious freedom or anything else; and last 
of all, possibly in this case more serious than all others, there is the very nobleness 
of the national university idea, on account of which so many eminent and influential 
citizens, who should make themselves felt in every practicable manner, rest in the 
hope that every other friend of the pending measure will do his full duty, and them- 
selves do little or nothing — in other words, shift the responsibility on Providence, 
forgetting that Providence helps those who first help themselves, and that no great 
end is realized except through sacrifice. 

OTHER OPPOSING FOKCES. 

Lastly, there are others, the grounds of whose opposition I will not even make a 
subject of conjecture, confining myself to a statement of facts of interest and to the 
pointing out of a few faults and the total insufficiency of the "memorial institution." 
The author of the paper under review was himself but lately interested in the 
national university, as will appear from his letter of December 20, 1894, which reads 
as follows: 

"I fully believe in establishing such a university in the interest of higher educa- 
tion, and I cordially indorse the statements made by the late president, James C. 
Welling, printed on pages 95-97 of your memorial on the subject. The statements 
and views expressed in the memorial are so exhaustive and comprehensive that I do 
not know that I could add to them, except to record my personal approval of the 
movement." 

The following is an extract from President Welling's letter, to which Dr. Walcott 
here refers: 

' ' Such a university as I here prefigure would come into no rivalry with any existing 
institution under the control of any denomination. It would aim to be the crown and 
culmination of our State institutions, borrowing graduates from them and repaying 
its debt by contributing in turn the inspiration of high educational standards and 
helping also in its measure to train the experts, * * * who should elsewhere 
strive to keep alive the traditions of a progressive scholarship. * * * It is not 
enough that our colleges should perpetuate and transmit the existing sum of human 
knowledge. We must have our workers on the boundaries of a progressive knowl- 
edge if we are to establish our hold on the directive forces of modern society. ' ' 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 103 

It may be added that within a very few months Dr. Walcott, who is still a member 
of the national university committee, avowedly shared the writer's indignation on 
accomit of delays, and expressed regret that he could not contribute more to the 
progress of the national university movement. 

FAULTS OF THE "mEMOEIAL" SCHEME.^ 

Now, while I have neither plan nor purpose to make war on the "Washington 
Memorial Institution," and might never have said a word concerning it but for this 
strange attempt upon the life of the national universitj^ movement, it seems my 
duty, as the matter stands, to point out some reasons why the said "memorial insti- 
tution," if established exactly as its friends would have it, is not likely to meet their 
expectations. I do so for the benefit in particular of such of its patriotic members 
as, being without time for a careful study of the whole subject, may have thought of 
it as a possible practical beginning of the national university in which they have 
believed. 

In the first place it is to be regretted that, as devised and constituted, it is not 
better calculated to represent the ideas of him whom it affects to honor — that it is 
fragmentary and does not contemplate a final nationab university. 

The friends and promoters of the national university movement had duly consid- 
ered the question of making the best practicable beginning they could, on the scien- 
tific side, wdthout waiting for direct Congressional authority, but soon concluded 
that it would be wiser to go forward and secure the desired Congressional action. 
The country had waited a hundred years and could wait a little longer. A proper 
charter then seemed within easy reach. A liberal charter is still bound to come, and 
at no distant day, now that the schemers have boldly thrown off the mask, on the 
one hand, and that the National Educational Association has again, for the fifth 
time, by an overwhelming vote, declared for a national university of the highest 
rank. 

Secondly, Washington wanted a true university, for supreme work only, and for 
reasons first national, then universal, located at the national capital, and sustaining 
such relations to all other institutions and educational agencies of the country and to 
the Government itself as would make it in a Guperior sense a stimulating and guiding 
as well as elevating force and influence for the universal good. 

It is also such an institution as this that the truly patriotic people of the United 
States want to-day. Nothing less will ever satisfy, as the able advocacy of earnest 
men in all the past, the persistent efforts of the national university committee, the 
liberal action of the United States Senate, and the recent renewal of supporting 
declarations of the country's educators, plainly show. 

Passing these two considerations, ethical and patriotic, the scheme of the memorial 
institution is itself of a character to challenge serious criticism, as its originators will 
find when they come to a practical test. 

According to Dr. Walcott, it is to be a private foundation, without Government 
support or control. But he also tells us: "The policy of the Government, as expressed, 
is to aid in higher education by granting [to the Washington Memorial Institution] 
the use of such facilities as are at its command in the District of Columbia;" and 
again: " The Government's part in the work of the Washington Memorial Institu- 
tion, when once under successful headway, will be to enlarge the quarters of the 
various bureaus concerned." To be sure, he hastens to add: "This will be necessary 

"A scheme unlike that of Mr. Carnegie, yet in general terms so in harmony there- 
with that its promoters were almost his only advisers in the planning of the Carnegie 
In.stitution, and are his chief coworkers now — facts which render a review of the 
* Washington Memorial Institution" appropriate in this report. 



104 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

eventually, even if no student assistants are provided for." But it is apparent that 
if the memorial institution is to utilize the Government's collections and facilities for 
scientific research at Washington, such collections and facilities, now inadequate to 
such utilization, must exceed the Government's own demands, and exceed them in 
proportion to the utilization by the memorial institution ; in other words, that Con- 
gress must make constantly increasing appropriations for the benefit of the memorial 
institution. Indeed, this enlargement of Governmental collections and facilities at 
Washington is the very sine qua non of the memorial institution. Yet we are told 
the memorial institution is to be without Government support. 

This is not all. The memorial institution is to be also independent of Government 
control, says Dr. Walcott. But he then goes on to inform us that the Cabinet and 
various other Government officials are largely to constitute the advisory board of the 
memorial institution, and that the character and extent of the student-assistants' 
work in the various departments of the Government is to be defined by the heads 
thereof, so that the same may be without detriment to the public service. And so, 
after all, there will be considerable opportunity, and indeed necessity, for Govern- 
ment control. 

It thus appears that the memorial institution is to avail itself of the very assistance, 
and is to be subject to the same influence which its promoters condemned when pro- 
posed, to a less extent, in connection with a national university. 

Other difficulties will present themselves after a little careful refiection; such as 
these, for example: 

1. The three particular functions of the memorial institution— to ascertain and 
publish the opportunities for students in the Government Departments at Washing- 
ton; to receive, enroll, and direct such students to the places awaiting them; and to 
record their work and certify it, when requested, to any institution of learning — 
require no such widely scattered board of trustees as is provided, but could be as 
well, and indeed more effectively, performed by a small local committee. Unlike a 
national university, with plans and policies to be developed, the memorial institu- 
tion begins with a fixed plan, whose operation will be largely subject to the dictation 
of the men whom the fortuities of politics have placed in charge of the Government 
Departments. The number and distribution of the board in question seem but a vain 
pretension to the nationality to which they are confessedly opposed. 

2. The number of students of the memorial institution being limited (very limited 
in the absence of Congressional appropriations), what is to prevent the institution, in 
whose interest the memorial institutions was primarily worked up, from having an 
undue share of student-assistant places? What is to safeguard the interests of the 
400 or more colleges and universities of the country, by insuring them equitable 
representation in the opportunities which the Government provides and which the 
memorial institution proposes to dispense? 

3. The departments will not readily cooperate with a nongovernmental agency 
calculated to interfere with its own work. 

4. If the memorial institution claims to provide opportunities for original research 
and investigation, it will sadly fail, for the Government does not carry on general 
scientific investigations, but confines itself to certain lines of work, which are not only 
special, but routine. If the Government expert himself can not bean original, inde- 
pendent investigator, much less can the student assistant. 

5. The memorial institution repudiates the idea of instruction. Yet how will the 
investigations by its student assistants in scientific work be carried on without instruc- 
tion, and pretty systematic instruction at that, to say nothing of any work it may 
attempt on lines not strictly scientific? 

6. Even on the very limited lines proposed by the'memorial institution, more money 
will be needed than such a concern is calculated to obtain from private sources. 
And how is the memorial institution to placate its Congressional patrons, when every 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 105 

student assistant, especially if he becomes a Government fixture (and the memorial 
institution anticipates that a majority of them will remain in the Government service) 
closes the door to just so much Congressional patronage? 

7. What shall be said of the ethics of an tain definite and independent plans for 
use of the Government Departments and bureaus such as no private institution but 
this would be likely to venture, and which the national university committee has 
not felt warranted in planning for the University of the United States. 

OVERESTIMATES OF EXTENT OF OPPOSITION. 

Citizens here and there, with a supreme interest in certain institutions, can not 
immediately subordinate all personal, local, and denominational ambitions, so as to 
take the national and world view of this matter. Or, if seeing rightly, as it is believed 
some of them do, they have not yet made up their minds to suffer the temporary 
losses and reproaches liable to follow a patriotic declaration of independence. If, 
therefore, I have at any time spoken of the half-dozen institutions whose present 
executive heads do not concur, as opposing the national university idea, the remark 
was too sweeping, for I am now satisfied that many of the broadest of the men thus 
embraced are in heart with us, that the opponents in these institutions coiistitute a 
minority only, and that of these many will be found on the affirmative side when 
fully informed concerning the nationaal university proposed. 

SPECIAL OFFICES OF A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY. 

Neither the above mentioned nor the unenlisted of whatever class or quarter have 
yet realized that the efforts made for a national university are not so much because 
we are still without a single exclusively post-graduate university in America, and are 
therefore properly regarded by the foreign world as in the second rank, with thou- 
sands of our graduates annually going abroad for the facilities we do not furnish, but 
rather because the national university we seek to have established at Washington 
would fulfill special offices of national importance which none other, whether private, 
denominational, or state, much less this memorial institution, could by any possi- 
bility fulfill, among them these: 

1. It would serve to supplement, coordinate, guide, inspire, and finally perfect the 
whole series of public educational agencies in the United States and thus entitle us 
to speak of "the American system of education" — a system such as this great 
Eepublic certainly should have without further delay. 

In the words of the editor of Science, issue of February 5, 1897, "A great national 
university would be the head of our educational system. It would not interfere with 
existing universities any more than these interfere with our colleges, or our colleges 
with our schools. Our present universities consist chiefly of professional schools on 
the one hand and of colleges for the instruction of boys on the other. They are 
indeed developing toward true universities, but nothing could better hasten and direct 
this development than a national university." 

2. A national university could more properly than other institutions, with less 
embarrassment to the Government, and with great common advantage, still further 
utilize the resources already at Washington in the form of libraries, muzeums, gar- 
dens, laboratories, and observatories, at a cost of $40,000,000 to the whole people, 
and all of which, together with the $7,000,000 a year for maintenance and utilization, 
and the possible help of scientific and practical experts, are, in some part, as I have 
said before, an enormous capital running to waste. 

3. A national university would powerfully influence ambitious students in the pub- 
lic schools of whatever grade, even though purposing to make their college studies, 
or even a measure of post-graduate study, in denominational institutions of their 
preference. They would keep it in view as the final goal, the place of final prepara- 
tion for special spheres of activity in life. 



106 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

4. Moreover, a national university would at the same time in many ways help 
and in nowise hinder all the other institutions of the country; for, in the first place, 
being without general academic courses of study, like a college, it would receive col- 
lege and university graduates for special studies only, leaving the general work look- 
ing to purely academic degrees (certainly those below the doctorate) to existing 
colleges and universities; and secondly, being free from both local and denomina- 
tional ambitions, it would naturally deal with all institutions of high rank and doing 
any work supremely well, in a most liberal manner, and in harmony with the best 
system of cooperation that could be devised. 

5. When in full operation the national university would be more effective than all 
other institutions in keeping at home the 3,000 to 5,000 of our graduates who now 
annually go abroad for the completion of their studies. The honor of its approval 
would soon come to be esteemed before any that could be offered by the foreign 
world. 

6. A national university would at length attract thousands of students of high 
character and attainments from other lands, whose return, after years of contact 
with a prosperous, cultured, and happy people living under free institutions, would 
tend to promote the cause of liberal government everywhere. 

7. A national university would be able, as would none other, to attract to its own 
service as lecturers, expert workers, guides, and directors many of the most gifted 
and best qxialified of those in the Government service at Washington, with the triple 
advantage of economy to the university, of increase of revenue to those so employed, 
and of an improved service in the Government through the added attraction thus 
furnished to superior men and women who now hesitate and ofttimes refuse to enter 
the service because of insufficient salaries and the less than satisfying dignity of many 
positions on this very account. In other words, men of genius and rare acquirements 
would accept places in the Government, and of lower grade than otherwise, because 
of promised or probable connection with the world's leading university. 

8. As could none other, a national university would attract men of genius and dis- 
tinction from every quarter of the world to its professorships, lectureships, and fel- 
lowships, thus increasing the cultured intellectual forces of both university and 
country. 

9. A national university, to an important extent, and as could no other institution, 
whatever its rank, would make itself a coworker with the Government in the several 
departments; meeting their demands with the least possible delay; making trust- 
worthy answers (as in the military and naval academies) to important questions; 
taking up, on request, the solution of difficult problems of every sort; and supplying 
the Government with experts of supreme ability in greater number because drawn 
from the field of the world. 

10. A national university would create an atmosphere at the national capital that 
would be influential for good in all departments of the Government, and go increase 
the demand for public men of character and culture as to furnish a new guaranty of 
wise legislation, and justice of judgment, as well as of faithfulness and efficiency of 
administration. 

11. A national university, thus honored and encouraged, would powerfully stimu- 
late and strengthen the patriotic sentiment of the country. The people universally 
would come to feel a pride in it as a sign of intellectual supremacy and of exalted 
aims, while to students in the schools and colleges of the States it would furnish a 
juster conception of what is meant by the field of learning, as well as new incentives 
to higher, and the highest possible, attainments; thus contributing in a degree beyond 
calculation to make us an educated people, and filling us with the determination to 
become the most cultured of all peoples. 

12. Having duly established a university of the United States and made it capable 
of fulfilling all these offices, so important, shall we not have gained for our country 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 107 

that rank and influence among the nations to Avhich not all our vast and varied 
material resources, the genius and wonderful energy of our people, and all our con- 
quests in war are alone equal? Heirs to the better part of this great continent, with 
its vast resources of every sort, we have indeed made a wonderful growth in area, 
population, wealth, and power; and meanwhile there has been a corresponding 
development in the boundless realm of the sciences, so that the national university 
we should now establish must differ in some respects (those of extent and greatness) 
from that which would have been founded in the daj's of Washington. Nevertheless, 
the special reasons which he so clearly had in mind have not only remained, as they 
ever must, but have strengthened with the years. They inhere in the nature of 
the case and should be regarded as conditions of a real supremacy of the Ameri- 
can Republic and of its becoming the world's most effective promoter of human 
advancement. 

Other offices to be fulfilled by a national university will suggest themselves, but 
are not these enough to satisfy and forever silence the query, "Do we really need 
another and national university? ' ' 

The establishment by Congress of a national university is an undertaking of so 
great importance, of such origin, and of such advocacy throughout the whole period 
of the nation's life as to have gained an abiding place in the hearts of the people. 
It is an undertaking the necessity for whose success is a firm conviction among the 
men most worthy to be heard in the interest of American education, and one the 
leadership in which, from first to last, has been as purely patriotic as any that was 
ever known, in peace or war. Such an undertaking will surely triumph. Schemes 
skilfully devised may delay, but they can not prevent, the establishment of a Uni- 
versity of the United States. 



THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 



[An asterisk (*) indicates deceased.] 

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. 

Hon. Melville W. Fuller, LL. D., Chief Justice of United States. 
Ex-Senator Geo. F. Edmunds, LL. D., Vermont. 
Ambassador Andrew D. White, LL. D., New York. 
Hon. Oscar S. Straus, New York, United States Minister. 
Ex-Governor John Lee Carroll, LL. D., Maryland. 
Gen. Horace Porter, LL. D., Ambassador, etc. 
Prof. Simon New comb, LL. D., United States Navy. 

Gen. John Eaton, ex-United States Commissioner of Education, Districtof Columbia. 
Col. Wilbur K. Smith, Kentucky University. 
Gen. Eppa Hunton, LL. D., ex-United States Senator, V^irginia. 
Hon. H. A. Herbert, ex-Secretary United States Navy, Alabama. 
Gen. J. B. Henderson, LL. D., ex-United States Senator, District of Columbia. 
Prof. S. P. Langley, LL. D., Smithsonian Institution. 

Ex-Minister John A. Kasson, LL. D., United States Commissioner, District of 
Columbia. 
Lieut. -Gen. Nelson A. Miles, LL. D., Commanding the Army. 
Ex-Governor John Wesley Hoyt, M. D., LL. D., District of Columbia. 

GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

Ex-Governor John Wesley Hoyt, The Victoria, Washington, D. C, chairman. 

OFFICERS AND EX-OPFICEES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

* Rutherford B. Hayes, ex-President of the United States. 

* Benjamin Harrison, ex-President of the United States. 

The Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States. 

* Ex-Senator John Sherman, while Secretary of State and after. 
David J. Hill, First Assistant Secretary of State. 

* W. D. Washburn, ex-Secretary of the Treasury. 

*A. H. Garland, ex-Attorney-General of the United States. 
Henry M. Hoyt, Assistant Attorney-General of the United States. 
Ex-Senator William F. Vilas, ex-Postmaster-General of the United States. 
Hilary A. Herbert, ex-Secretary of the Navy. 
Carl Schurz, ex-Secretary of the Interior. 

* L. Q. C. Lamar, ex-Secretary of the Interior. 

Binger Hermann, Commissioner of the General Land Office. 

Ellis Spear, ex-Commissioner of Patents. 

Andrew D. White, ex-president of Cornell, Ambassador to Germany, etc. 

Horace Porter, Ambassador to France. 

108 



/ 

UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 109 

John A. Kasson, ex-Minister to Germany. 

Wayne MacVeagh, ex- Ambassador to Italy. 

Oscar C. Straus, Minister to Turkey. 

Wm. M. Sloane, ex-Minister to Italy. 

Ex-United States Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont. 

Ex-United States Senator J. B. Henderson, of Missouri. 

Ex-United States Senator Eppa Hunton, of Virginia. 

Ex-United States Senator John L. Mitchell, of Wisconsin. 

* Ex-United States Senator Jas. E. Doolittle, of Wisconsin. 

* Ex-United States Senator Philetus Sawyer, of Wisconsin. 
Ex-United States Senator Wm. F. Vilas, of Wisconsin. 

* Ex-United States Senator Jos. N. Dolph, of Oregon. 

* Ex-United States Senator John J. Ingalls, of Kansas. 

* Ex-United States Senator Patrick Walsh, of Georgia. 
Ex-United States Senator Joseph M. Carey, of Wyoming. 
Lieut. -Gen. Nelson A. Miles, Commanding the Army. 
Maj.-Gen. J. M. Schofield, ex-Commander in Chief of the Army. 
G. Norman Leiter, ex-Judge- Advocate-General of the Army. 
George M. Sternberg, Surgeon-General of the Army. 

John M. Wilson, ex-Chief of Engineers of the Army. 
George W. Melville, ex-Chief of Engineers of the Navy. 
W. C. Craighill, ex-Chief of Engineers of the Navy. 
John W. Ross, Commissioner of the District of Columbia. 

M. F. Morris, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. 
Henry Barnard, ex-United States Commissioner of Education. 
Gen. John Eaton, ex-United States Commissioner of Education. 
S. P. Langley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. 
G. Brown Goode, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. 
E. L. Pythian, ex-Superintendent of the Naval Observatory. 
Simon Newcomb, ex-Director of the Nautical Almanac. 
Geo. W. DutReld, ex-Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. 
T. C. Mendenhall, ex-Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. 
Chas. D. Walcott, Director of the Geological Survey. 
John W. Powell, Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology. 
W J McGee, Ethnologist in charge. Bureau of American Ethnology. 
J. S. Billings, ex-Director Army Medical Museum, Director of Public Library, New 
York City. 
Carroll D. Wright, United States Commissioner of Labor. 
James Longstreet, United States Commissioner of Eailroads. 

* Wheelock G. Veazey, Interstate Commerce Commissioner. 

Clinton Furbish, ex -Director of the Bureau of the American Eepublics. 
Otis T. Mason, Curator of Ethnology, National Museum. 
W. H. Holmes, Curator of Anthropology, National IVIuseum. 

Albert F. Woods, Assistant Chief, Division of Vegetable Physiology and Pathology, 
Department of Agriculture. 
J. S. Diller, United States Geological Survey. 

EMINENT CLERGYMEN. 

Thos. March Clark, Protestant Episcopal bishop of New Jersey. 
Thos. Underwood Dudley, Protestant Episcopal bishop of Kentucky. 
Samuel Fallows, bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church. 
0. P. Fitzgerald, bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church South. 
William Paret, Protestant Episcopal bishop of iNIaryland. 



110 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Thos. E. Starkey, Protestant Episcopal bishop of New Jersey. 
Ethelbert Talbot, Protestant Episcopal bishoia of Central Pennsylvania. 
T. De Witt Talmage, clergyman, Washington, D. C. 

Kobert S. Booth, formerly moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church, New York City. 
George Dana Boardman, clergyman, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Edward Everett Hale, clergyman, Roxbury, Mass. 
Tennis S. Hamlin, clergyman, Washington, D. C. 
Frank Sewall, clergyman, Washington, D. C. 
Frederick D. Power, clergyman, Washington, D. C. 
Alexander Kent, clergyman, Washington, D. C. 

STATE OFFICIALS AND EX-OFPICIALS. 

* Louis C. Flughes, ex-governor of Arizona. 

* O. Vincent Coffin, ex-governor of Connecticut. 
John Lee Carroll, ex-governor of Maryland. 

* Frederick T. Greenhalge, ex-governor of Massachusetts. 

* Roger Walcott, ex-governor of Massachusetts. 

* John E. Jones, ex-governor of Nevada. 

* Frederick W. Smyth, ex-governor of New Hampshire. 
*Wm. C. Todd, ex-governor of New Hampshire. 
Roger Allin, ex-governor of North Dakota. 

E. C. Shortridge, ex-governor of South Dakota. 
H. McGraw, ex-governor of Washington. 

J. E. Rickards, ex-governor of Montana. 

John O. Turner, ex-State superintendent of education of Alabama. 

F. J. Netherton, ex-Territorial superintendent of public instruction of Arizona. 
Josiah Shinn, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Arkansas. 

J. J. Doyne, superintendent of public instruction of Arkansas. 
J. W. Anderson, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of California. 
Samuel T. Black, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of California. 
*Ezra S. Carr, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of California. 
A. J. Peavey, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Colorado. 

G. E. Patton, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Colorado. 
Charles D. Hine, ex-State superintendent of education of Connecticut. 
C. C. Tindal, secretary State board of education of Delaware. 

* Zalmon Richards, ex-superintendent of schools of the District of Columbia. 
William B. Powell, superintendent of schools of the District of Columbia. 
Albert J. Russel, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Florida. 

G. R. Glenn, ex-State school commissioner of Georgia. 

Louis N. B. Anderson, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Idaho. 
Newton Bateman, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Illinois. 
Richard Edwards, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Illinois. 
William A. Mowry, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Illinois, editor 
" Education." 
Henry Raab, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Illinois. 
Hervey D. Vories, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Indiana. 
David M. Geeting, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Indiana. 
Henry Sabin, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Iowa. 
H. N. Gaines, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Kansas. 
E. Stanley, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Kansas. 
Ed. Porter Thompson, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Kentucky, 
W. W. Stetson, ex-State superintendent of schools of Maine. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Ill 

E. B. Prettj'man, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Maryland. 

M. Bates Stephens, State superintendent of public instruction of Maryland. 

J. W. Dickinson, ex-secretary State board of education of Massachusetts. 

Frank A. Hill, ex-secretary State board of education of Massachusetts. 

Henry R. Pattengill, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Michigan. 

W. W. Pendergast, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Minnesota. 

J. R. Preston, ex-State superintendent of public education of Mississippi. 

John R. Kirk, ex-State superintendent of schools of Missouri. 

L. E. AVolfe, ex-State superintendent of schools of Missouri. 

A. K. Goudy, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Nebraska. 

W. R. Jackson, State superintendent of public instruction of Nebraska. 

H. C. Cutting, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Nevada. 

Frederick Gowing, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of New Hampshire. 

A. B. Poland, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of New Jersej-. 

* Amado Chavez, ex-Territorial superintendent of public instruction of New Mexico. 

* Andrew J. Rickoff, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of New York. 
Chas. R. Skinner, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of New York. 

S. M. Finger, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of North Carolina. 

John C. Scarborough, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of North 
Carolina. 

E. T. Bates, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of North Dakota. 

L. J. Eisenhuth, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of North Dakota. 

Louis L. Bonebrake, State commissioner of common schools of Ohio. 

Nathan C. Schaeffer, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Pennsylvania. 

Thos. P. Stockwell, ex-State commissioner of schools of Rhode Island. 

W. D. Maytield, ex-State superintendent of education of South Carolina. 

John J. McMahan, State superintendent of education of South Carolina. 

Cortez Salmon, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of South Dakota. 

S. G. Gilbreath, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Tennessee. 

J. M. Carlisle, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Texas. 

T. B. Lewis, ex-Territorial commissioner of schools of I'tah. 

Edwin F. Palmer, ex-State superintendent of education of Vermont. 

Mason S. Stone, ex-State sui3erintendent of education of Vermont. 

John E. Massey, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Virginia. 

C. W. Bean, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Washington. 

Frank J. Brown, superintendent of public instruction of Washington. 

Virgil A. Lewis, ex-State superintendent of free schools of West Virginia. 

L. D. Harvey, State superintendent of public instruction of Wisconsin. 

Estelle Reel, ex-State superintendent of public instruction of Wyoming, superin- 
tendent of Indian schools of the United States. 

W. H. Courcill, president Agricultural and Mechanical College, Normal, Ala. 

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS AND EX-PRESIDENTS. 

Wm. LeRoy Broun, president Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Ala. 
A. S. Andrews, ex-president Southern University, Greensboro, Ala. 
G. W. Andrews, president Talladega College, Talladega, Ala. 

Booker T. Washington, president Tuskegee Normal and Indusrtial Institute, Tus- 
kegee, Ala. 

Richard C. Jones, ex-president University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Ala. 

James K. Powers, ex-president University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Ala. 

J. L. Buchanan, ex-president Arkansas Industrial University, Fayetteville, Ark. 

J. C. Corbin, president Branch Normal College, Pine Bluff, Ark. 

A. C. Millar, president Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. 



112 UlklVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Samuel B. Morse, ex-president California College, Highland Park, Oakland, Cal. 
David Star Jordan, president Leland Stanford University, Palo Alto, Cal. 
Martin Kellogg, ex-president University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 
Wm. F. Slocum, president Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colo. 
Barton 0. Aylesworth, president State Agricultural College, Fort Collins, Colo., 
ex-president Drake Universit}^, Des Moines, Iowa. 
Jas. H. Baker, president University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo. 

* Horace M. Hale, ex-president University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo. 

Wm. F. McDowell, ex. chancellor University of Denver, University Park, Colo., 
secretary board of education, Methodist Episcopal church. 

Alston Ellis, president State Agricultural College, Fort Collins, Colo. 
Geo. Wm. Smith, president Trinity College, Hartford Conn. 
Geo. A. Harter, president Delaware College, Newark, Del. 
Geo. W. Flint, president Storrs Agricultural College, Storrs, Conn. 
W. 0. Jason, president State College, Dover, Del. ■ 

B. L. Whitman, ex-president Columbian University, Washington, D. C. 
J. E. Rankin, president Howard University, Washington, D. C. 

* Arthur McArthur, chancellor National University, Washington, D. C. 

* W. F. Yocum, president Florida Agricultural College, Lake City, Fla. 
John F. Forbes, president John B. Stetson University, De Land, Fla. 
J. H. Ford, ex-president Rollins College, Winter Park, Fla. 

Rev. Geo. M. Ward, D. D., president Rollins College, Winter Park, Fla. 

J. D. Tucker, president State Normal and Industrial College, Tallahassee, Fla. 

Franklin B. Gault, ex-president University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

Holmes Dysinger, ex-president Carthage College, Carthage, 111. 

*C. Johann, ex-president Eureka College, Eureka, 111. 

John E. Bradley, ex-president Illinois College, Jacksonville, 111. 

John H. Finley, ex-president Knox College, Galesburg, 111. 

John M. Coulter, ex-president Lake Forest University, Lake Forest, 111. 

J. H. N. Standish, ex-president Lombard University, Galesburg, 111. 

J. B. McMichael, ex-i^resident Monmouth College, Monmouth, 111. 

* J. H. Breese, ex -president Northern Illinois College, Fulton, 111. 
Henrj^ Wade Rogers, ex-president Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. 
Wm. R. Harper, president University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 

J. M. Gregory, ex-president University of Illinois. 

T. J. Burrill, ex-acting president University of Illinois, Champaign, 111. 

H. A. Gobin, president De Pauw University, Greencastle, Ind. 

Jos. J. Mills, president Earlham College, Richmond, Ind. 

W. T. Stott, president Franklin College, Franklin, Ind. 

Joseph Swain, president Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 

Jas. H. Smart, ex-president Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind. 

C. Leo Mees, president Rose Polytechnic Institute, Terre Haute, Ind. 
Geo. S. Burroughs, ex-president Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Ind. 

J. Martin Littlejohn, ex-president Amity College, College Springs, Iowa. 
Arthur B. Chaffee, ex-president Central University, Bella, Iowa. 
Wm. F. King, president Cornell College, Mount Vernon, Iowa. 
W. S. Perry, ex-president Griswold College, Davenport, Iowa. 
Geo. W. Gates, ex-president Iowa College, Grinnell, Iowa. 

Wm. M. Beardshear, president Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa; president National 
Educational Association. 
Ambrose C. Smith, ex-president Parsons College, Fairfield, Iowa. 
Absalom Rosenberger, president Penn College, Oskaloosa, Iowa. 
Wm. H. Brooks, ex-president Tabor College, Tabor, Iowa. 
Charles A. Schaeffer, ex-president University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 113 

William Bruch, ex-president University of the Northwest, Sioux City, Iowa. 

J. C. Gilchrist, ex-president University of the Northwest, Sioux City, Iowa. 

J. W. Bissell, ex-president Upper Iowa University, Fayette, Iowa. 

L. Bookwalter, president Western College, Toledo, Iowa. 

N. J. Morrison, ex-jiresident Fairniount College, Wichita, Kans. 

Thos. E. Will, president Kansas State Agricultural College, Manhattan, Kans. 

F. W. Colegrove, ex -president Ottawa University, Ottawa, Kans. 

M. L. Ward, ex-president Ottawa University, Ottawa, Kans. 

Chester A. Place, ex-president Southwest Kansas College, Winfield, Kans. 

F. H. Snow, ex-president University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans. 

Geo. M. Herrick, president Washburn College, Topeka, Kans. 

S. Ryland, ex-president Bethel College, Russellville, Ky. 

L. H. Blanton, ex-president Central University, Richmond, Ky., vice-president 
Centre College, Danville, Ky. 

Wm. C. Roberts, president Centre College, Danville, Ky. 

Chas. L. Loos, ex-president, Kentucky University, Lexington, Ky. 

Wm. A. Obenchain, president Ogden College, Bowling Green, Ky. 

Samuel S. Woolwine, president South Kentucky College, Hopkinsville, Ky. 

Edward C. Mitchell, ex-president Leland University, New Orleans, La. 

D. F. Boyd, ex-president Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 

J. W. Nicholson, ex-president Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 

Henry A. Hill, president Southern University and Agricultural College, New 
Orleans, La. 

Oscar Alewort, ex-president Straight University, New Orleans, La. 

Geo. C. Chase, president Bates College, Lewiston, Me. 

Nathaniel Butler, ex-president Colby College, Waterville, Me. 

A. W. Harris, ex-president University of Maine, Orono, Me. 

R. W. Silvester, president Maryland Agricultural College, College Park, Md. 

Daniel C. Gilman, ex-president John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., presi- 
dent Carnegie Institution, Washington, D. C. 

Thomas Fell, president St. John's College, Annapolis, Md. 

P. H. Cooper, ex-superintendent U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. 

F. V. McNair, rear-admiral, U. S. N., ex-superintendent U. S. Naval Academy, 
Annapolis, Md. 

Richard Wainwright, lieutenant, U. S. N., superintendent U. S. Naval Academy, 
Annapolis, Md. 

Merrill E. Gates, ex-president Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. 

Elmer Hewitt Capen, president Tufts College, Tufts College, Mass. 

Homer T. Fuller, ex-president Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass. 

D. C. Thomas, ex-president Adrian College, Adrian, Mich. 
David Jones, president Adrian College, Adrian, Mich. 

Geo. W. Cairnes, ex-president Battle Creek College, Battle Creek, Mich. 

Jas. G. Rodger, president Benzonia College, Benzonia, Mich. 

Geo. F. Mosher, ex-president Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Mich. 

Gerrit J. Kollen, president Hope College, Holland, Mich. 

Jas. B. Angell, president University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 

Jas. W. Strong, president Carleton College, Northtield, Minn. 

Th. N. Mohr, ex-president St. Olaf College, Northtield, Minn. 

Wm. F. Phelps, resident director State Normal School, Duluth, Minn. 

Cyrus Northrup, president University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 

E. H. Triplett, president Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College, Westside, 
Miss. 

R. Lee Cannon, ex-president of Millsaps College, Jackson, Miss. 

S. Rep, 945 8 



114 UlSriVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Stephen D. Lee, ex-president Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College, 
Agricultural College, Miss. 

Eobert B. Fulton, president University of Mississippi, University, Miss. 

E. B. Craighead, ex-president Central College, Fayette, Mo. 

Wm. H. Black, president Missouri Valley College, Marshall, Mo. 

Richard Henry Jesse, president University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 

John P. Greene, president William Jewell College, Liberty, Mo. 

James Reid, president Montana College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Boze- 
man, Mont. 

Oscar J. Craig, president University of Montana, Missoula, Mont. 

G. R. Dungan, ex-chancellor Cotner University, Bethany, Nebr. 

D. W. C. Huntington, president Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln, Nebr. 
Geo. E. MacLean, ex-president University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr. 

Chas. E. Bessey, ex-president University of Nebraska, Nebr. 

E. Benjamin Andrews, president University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr. ; ex-pres- 
ident Brown University, Providence, R. I. 

J. E. Stubbs, president Nevada State University, Reno, Nev. 
Wm. J. Tucker, president Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 
Chas. S. Murkland, president New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic 
Arts, Durham, N. H. 

F. L. Patton, president Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 

Frederic W. Sanders, president New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic 
Arts, Mesilla Park, N. Mex. 

Arthur E. Main, ex-president Alfred University, Alfred, N. Y. 

Boothe Colwell Davis, president Alfred University, Alfred, N. Y. 

Geo. Wm. Smith, ex-president Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y. 

J. G. Schui-man, president Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 

M. Woolsey Stryker, president Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y. 

David H. Cochran, ex-president Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

John Hudson Peck, ex-president Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N. Y. 

James R. Day, president Syracuse University, Syracuse, N. Y. 

Harrison E. Webster, ex-president Union College, Schenectady, N. Y. 

A. L. Mills, colonel, U. S. A., superintendent U. S. Military Academy, West 
Point, N. Y. 

H. M. McCracken, chancellor University of the City of New York, N. Y. 

Anson Judd Upson, chancellor University of the State of New York, Albany, N. Y. 

Alex. Q. Holladay, president North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic 
Arts, West Raleigh, N. C. 

James B. Dudley, president Ag. and Mech. College for the colored race, Greens- 
boro, N. C. 

Lewis L. Hobbs, president Guilford College, Guilford College, N. C. 

Chas. F. Meserve, president Shaw University, Raleigh, N. C. 

Webster Merrifield,. president University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, N. Dak. 

Daniel Albright Long, ex-president Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio. 

W. A. Bell, president Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio. 

Orello Cone, ex-president Buchtel College, Akron, Ohio. 

Cady Staley, president Case School of Applied Science, Cleveland, Ohio. 

J. A. Peters, ex-president Heidelberg University, Tiffin, Ohio. 

Ely V. Zollars, president Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio. 

Theodore Sterling, ex-president Kenyon College, Gambler, Ohio. 

William F. Peirce, president Kenyon College, Gambler, Ohio. 

John W. Simpson, ex-president Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio. 

J. F. Jones, ex-acting president Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio. 

Jesse Johnson, president Muskingum College, New Concord, Ohio. 



UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 115 

W. G. Ballentine, ex-president Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. 
John Henry Barrows, president Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. 
Wm. H. Scott, ex-president Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 
Jas. H. Canfield, ex-president Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 
W. 0. Thompson, president Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 
Chas. W. Super, ex-president Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. 
T. J. Sanders, ex-president Otterbein University, Westerville, Ohio. 
Faye Walker, ex-president Oxford College, Oxford, Ohio. 
W. A. SprouU, ex-president University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 
Sylvester E. Scovel, ex-president University of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio. 
Chas. F. Thwing, president Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 
S. T. Mitchell, ex-president Wilberforce University, Wilberforce, Ohio. 
S. A. Ort, president Wittenberg College, Springfield, Ohio. 

A. C. Scott, president Oklahoma Agriculutural and Mechanical College, Stillwater, 
Okla. 
Thomas McClelland, ex-president Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oreg. 
C. C. Stratton, ex-president Portland University, Portland, Oreg. 
C. H. Chapman, ex-president University of Oregon, Eugene, Oreg. 
W. C. Hawley, president Willamette University, Salem, Oreg. 
E. Oram Lyte, president First Pennsylvania State Normal School, Millersville, Pa. 
W. P. Johnston, president Geneva College, Beaver Falls, Pa. 
A. H. Fetterolf, president Girard College, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Isaac Sharpless, president Haverford College, Haverford, Pa. 
Ethelbert D. Warfield, president Lafayette College, Easton, Pa. 

* Henry Coppee, ex-president Lehigh University, South Bethlehem, Pa. 
Theo. L. Seip, president Muhlenberg College, AUentown, Pa. 

H. W. McKnight, president Pennsylvania College, Gettysburg, Pa. 
Geo. W. Atherton, president Pennsylvania State College, State College, Pa. 
I. Thornton Osmond, dean Pennsylvania State College, State College, Pa. 
Henry P. Armsby, dean College of Agriculture of State College, State College, Pa. 
Edwin H. McGill, ex-president Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa. 
Charles De Garmo, ex-president Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa. 
Theopilus B. Roth, president Thiel College, Greenville, Pa. 

* William Pepper, ex-provost University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Henry T. Spangler, president Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa. 

Archelaus E. Turner, president Waynesburg College, Waynesburg, Pa. ; ex-presi- 
dent Lincoln University, Lincoln, 111. 

W. J. Holland, ex-president Western University of Pennsylvania, Pittsburg, Pa. 

Harrison Randolph, ex-president College of Charleston, Charleston, S. C. 

Thos. E. Miller, president Colored Normal, Industrial, Agricultural, and Mechan- 
ical College of South Carolina, Orangeburg, S. C. 

J. Woodrow, ex-president South Carolina College, Columbia, S. C. 

Wm. M. Blackburn, ex-president Pierre University, Pierre, S. Dak. 

John W. Heston, president South Dakota Agricultural College, Brookings, S. Dak. 

J. M. Mauck, ex-president University of South Dakota, Vermilion, S. Dak. 

Garret Droppers, president University of South Dakota, Vermilion, S. Dak. 

J. L. Dickens, ex -president Bethel College, McKenzie, Tenn. 

John Braden, ex-president Central Tennessee College, Nashville, Tenn. 

Nathan Green, president Cumberland L^niversity, Lebanon, Tenn. 

J. I. D. Hinds, dean of faculty Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tenn. 

Erastus Milo Ci'avath, ex-president Fisk University, Nashville, Tenn. 

Samuel W. Boardman, ex-president Maryville College, Maryville, Tenn. 

George Summey, president Southwestern Presbyterian University, Clarksville, 
Tenn. 



116 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES, 

W. H. Payne, president University of Nashville, Nashville, Tenn. 

Chas. W. Dabney, president University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn. 

B. Lawton Wiggins, president University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn. 

J. H. Kirkland, president Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 

Addison Clark, ex-president Add-Ran Christian University, Waco, Texas. 

Albert Buxton, ex-president Add-Ran Christian University, Waco, Tex. 

J. M. Turner, president Agricultural College of Utah, Logan, Utah. 

T. H. Bridges, president Henry College, Campbell, Tex. 

J. H. Grove, president Howard Payne College, Brownwood, Tex. 

Geo. T. Winston, ex-president University of Texas, Austin, Tex. 

Thomas Fitz Hugh, ex-president University of Texas, Austin, Tex. 

Jos. T. Kingsbury, president University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Ezra Brainerd, president Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. 

Mat. H. Buckham, president University of Vermont, Bui'lington, Vt. 

Richard Mcllwaine, president Hampden Sidney College, Hampden Sidney, Va. 

H. B. Frissell, president Hampton Institute, Hampton, Va. 

J. D. Dreher, president Roanoke College, Salem, Va. 

P. B. Barringer, president University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 

J. M. McBryde, president Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va. 

Lyon G. Tyler, president William and Mary College, Williamsburg, Va. 

Mark W. Harrington, ex-president University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 

Frank Pierrepont Graves, president University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 

E. A. Bryan, president Washington Agricultural College, Pullman, Wash. 

P. B. Reynolds, ex-president West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. 

Jerome H. Raymond, ex-president West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va. 

D. Powell, ex-president AVest Virginia College, Flemington, W. Va. 

Edward D. Eaton, ex -president Beloit College, Beloit, Wis. 

Samuel Plantz, president Lawrence University, Appleton, Wis. 

Arthur Piper, ex-president Racine College, Racine, Wis. 

Rufus C. Flagg, ex-president Ripon College, Ripon, Wis. 

A. F. Ernst, president Northwestern University, Watertown, Wis. 

Charles Kendall Adams, president University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 

EMINENT CITIZENS IN VARIOUS OFFICIAL POSITIONS. 

* Benjamin Apthorp Gould, astronomer. 

Wilbur R. Smith, president Commercial College, Kentucky University. 

R. H. Thurston, president Sibley College, Cornell University. 

Melvil Dewey, secretary University of the State of New York. 

-T. C. Chamberlin, head professor of geology, University of Chicago, formerly pres- 
ident University of Wisconsin. 

H. von Hoist, professor of history. University of Chicago. 

*H. B. Adams, professor of history and political economy, Johns Hopkins 
University. 

Jacob D. Cox, dean of law school, Cincinnati College. 

Wm. D. Cabell, principal of Norwood Institute, Norwood, Va. 

Wm. A. Mowry, president Marthas Vineyard Summer Institute, Cottage City, Mass. 

Jacob Bickler, principal of Bickler Academy, Austin, Tex., formerly superintenden 
public schools of Galveston, Tex. 

Theodore P. Ion, professor of international law, "National University," Washing- 
ton, D. C. 

H. C. White, professor of chemistry. University of Georgia. 

*M. Scheie de Vere, University of Virginia. 

Chas. Sprague Smith, managing director People's Institute, New York City, 
formerly professor of history, Columbia College. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 117 

James Hall, ex-State geologist of New York. 
N. H. Winchell, State geologist of Minnesota. 
Ulysses S. Grant, assistant State geologist of jNIinnesota. 
Eugene A. Smith, ex-State geologist of Alabama. 
Prof. George F. Barker, of the University of Pennsylvania. 
Wm. H. Maxwell, superintendent of schools of New York City. 
F. E. Nipher, president Academy of Science of St. Louis. 
Bloomfield J. Miller, ex-president Actuarial Society of America. 
Edmund J. James, president American Academy of Political and Social Science. 
D. G. Brinton, ex-president American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
Henry E. Alvord, ex-president American Association of Agricultural Colleges and 
Experiment Stations. 
Jas. Grant Wilson, president American Authors' Guild. 
Henry C. Adams, ex-president American Economic Association. 
Chas. E. West, president American Ethnological Association. 
Richard S. Storrs, president American and Long Island Historical Societies. 
H. Randall Waite, president American Institute of Civics. 
Henry M. Whitney, president American Pharmaceutical Association. 
David L. James, ex-president Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 
F. W. Langdon, ex-president Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 
Edward Orton, ex-president Geological Society of America. 

* Gardiner G. Hubbard, ex-president National Geographic Society. 
Alexander Graham Bell, president National Geographic Society. 

J. Q. A. Ward, president National Sculpture Society. 

Asa Bird Gardiner, secretary-general Society of the Cincinnati. 

*Dabney H. Maury, ex-chairman Southern Historical Society. 

OTHER EMINENT CITIZENS. 

Henry Herschell Adams, merchant. New York City. 
Ethan Allen, author, New York City. 

* Philip D. Armour, capitalist, Chicago, 111. 

J. Hubley Ashton, lawyer, Washington, D. C. 

Henry Baldwin, "custodian of American history," New Haven, Conn. 
Amzi Lorenzo Barber, capitalist, New York City. 
Chas. J. Bell, banker, Washington, D. C. 
Henry F. Blount, capitalist, Washington, D. C. 
Cephas Brainerd, lawyer. New York City. 

B. J. Buckland, president Minnesota and Dakota Land Company, Minneapolis, 
Minn., formerly superintendent of public schools of Morris, Minn. 
0. H. P. Cornell, New York City. 
Maj. A. S. Cushman, East Orange, N. J. 
Thomas Davidson, author, Cambridge, Mass. 

* George R. Davis, director-general Woi'ld's Columbian Exposition. 
Thomas Dolans, capitalist. New York City. 

John Joy Edson, president Washington Loan and Trust Company, Washington, 
D. C. 
Chas. M. Ffoulke, banker and broker, Washington, D. C. 
Marshall Field, capitalist, Chicago, 111. 
Erastus T. Ford, broker and inventor. New York City. 
Persifor Frazer, chemist, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Elmer Gates, scientist and inventor, Washington, D. C. 
Thomas Stockwell Hatcher, Washington, D. C. 
William Wirt Henry, lawyer, Richmond, Va. 



118 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Frank H. Kasson, editor Education, Boston, Mass. 

E. D. Kathrens, Kansas City, Mo. 

John Clarence Lee, Hyde Park, Mass. 

G. W. Littlehales, hydrographic engineer, Washington, D. C. 

Lafayette C. Loomis, capitaUst, Washington, D. C. 

J. H. McGibbons, Chicago, 111. 

P. W. Mudum, formerly mayor of Savannah, Ga. 

James M. North, lawyer, Washington, D. C. 

Eobert E. Pakum, president Security Trust and Life Insurance Company, of 

Philadelphia. 
Johns D. Parker, author and inventor. East Orange, N. J. 
W. C. Pennewitt, Glencarlyn, Va. 
Israel W. Peres, lawyer, Memphis, Tenn. 
Josiah C. Pumpelly, New York City. 
E. P. Powell, author, Clinton, N. Y. 
John Clark Eidpath, historian. 
*Chas. Broadway Eouss, capitalist. 

* Pliny T. Sexton, ex-commander in chief of the Grand Army of the Eepublic. , 
Albert Shaw, editor Eeview of Eeviews, New York City. 

George H. Shibley, author, Washington, D. C. 

Samuel E. Shipley, capitalist, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Franklin W. Smith, president National Art Galleries Company, Washington, D. C. 

I. S. Stone, physician, Washington, D. C. 

Justice C. Strawbridge, capitalist, Philadelphia, Pa. 

George D. Todd, formerly mayor of Louisville, Ky. 

* Henry Villard, capitalist. 

John Brisben Walker, editor Cosmopolitan, New York City. 

Lester F. Ward, scientist and author, Washington, D. C. 

B. H. Warner, capitalist, Washington, D. C. 

W. C. Whittemore, Washington, D. C. 

Caleb C. Willard, capitalist, Washington, D. C. 

Maxwell V. Z. Woodhull, Washington, D. C. 



LETTERS INDORSING UNIVERSITY PROPOSITION. 



LETTERS, 300 IN NUMBER, RECEIVED FROM PROMINENT CITIZENS IN SUPPORT OF 
THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY MEASURE. IN ADDITION TO THE 400 INCLUDED IN THE 
SENATE COMMITTEE'S REPORT SUBMITTED BY MR. KYLE, MARCH 10, 1896 {REPORT 
NO. 429, FIFTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, PARTS 1 AND 3). 

November 18, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I have your letter of November 16 with the inclosed leaflet. If so 
large a number of our public men and distinguished educators, as indicated in your 
authorized list of meml:)ers, have consented to cooperate in the project to promote 
the establishment of the university of the United States, I will, of course, not with- 
hold the use of my name, though I can hardly hope, at least in the near future, to 
give any time to the promotion of the enterjirise. 

Very truly, yours, Benj. Harrison. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, March 14, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: I trust I need not assure you of the deep interest I feel in the suc- 
cess of the movement for the establishment of a national university. No one can 
underrate the vital importance of the higher education to the perpetuity of the 
Republic and the happiness and prosperity of its people, or fail to recognize the 
ever widening circle of its demands. The wonderful prescience of Washington 
anticipated what we are beginning to realize. It seems to me that the reasons in 
favor of the foundation of the university, substantially in accordance with the plan 
proposed, are too obvious and weighty to be disregarded. 
Very truly, yours, 

Melville W. Fuller, 
[Chief Justice of the United States.^ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



December 18, 1897. 
My Dear Governor: Your very kind letter of this date has been received. In 
reply I would say that should it be thought advisable you are at liberty to use 
my name "in connection with a place in the executive council" [of the national- 
university committee] , as you suggest. 

Very sincerely, yours. Nelson A. Miles, 

ILieutenant- General, U. S. A., Commanding the 

Army of the United States.1 
Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Cornell University, 
Ithaca, N. Y., September 14, 1900. 
My Dear Dr. Hoyt: Returning to Ithaca, I find your kind letter of August 31, 
which, with the article you inclose, interests me greatly. Your argument is admi- 
rably stated and must carry weight with thinking people. As to the plan * * * 
I am strongly convinced that the best hope for such an institution is in one of our 
great millionaires^when there shall come one who appreciates a great opportunity 

119 



120 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

to make the most splendid present ever made to any nation — the most useful posi- 
tively to the people and the most honorable to himself, insuring him fame after 
the other great men in his generation have long been forgotten. Should, however, 
the national university come — and it surely will come — your name as that of its 
most earnest champion will always be connected with it. 
I remain, in great haste, most truly, yours, 

And. D. White. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

The Victoria, Washington, D. C. 



Embassy of the United States, 

Berlin, June 10, 1901. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: Referring to your letter of May 29, I am as thoroughly 
convinced as ever that the establishment of a well-equipped university at Washing- 
ton would be of immense use to the country, and would strengthen rather than 
weaken every one of the existing universities. 

This is the result of much reflection upon the subject, and I most earnestly hope 
that you may live to see a proper project realized. 
In great haste, most sincerely, yours. 

And. D. White. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Embass-y op the United States, 

Berlin, June 29, 1901. 
Dear Dr. Hoyt: I have a strong and abiding faith that the institution that we have 
so long wished to see [the national university] will yet be a glorious reality. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

Andrew D. White. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, LL. D., 

The Victoria, Washington, D. C. 



The Arlington, Washington, D. C. , January 8, 1896. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: The appearance of the representatives of the council of 
the national-university committee before the committees of Congress will enable you 
and the rest of us, if we can be present, to explain how strong and universal the 
demand is for the establishment of the university. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

Geo. F. Edmunds. 
Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Philadelphia, May 21, 1896. 
My Dear Governor: I have your reply to " Views of the Minority," for which 
please accept my thanks. It is admirable, and the short-sighted, selfish opposers 
will live to regret what they are now doing. 
In haste, very sincerely, yours, 

Geo. F. Edmunds. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, B. C. 



Philadelphia, Pa., November 21, 1900. 

My Dear Governor: I have yours of the 18th. I have not been well all summer 
and am not yet well. It is, therefore, impossible for me to give any attention or 
render any assistance to the university business. * * * 

With every good wish for the success of the national-university scheme, which so 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 121 

many of us have so long believed to be of the highest national utility and importance 
and with my personal most friendly salutations to the other members of the council, 
I am, very truly, yours, 

Geo. F. Edmunds. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Philadelphia, Pa., Novemher 15, 1901. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: Yours of the 5th instant came duly. I have not been 
able to acknowledge it until now. 
I certainly hope that the national university may come to be established. 
In haste, very truly, yours, 

Geo. F. Edmunds. 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, March 17, 1896. 
Dear Sir: You will please be reassured of my deep and abiding interest in the 
proposition to found a national post-graduate university at Washington, where in so 
large a degree the material and forces are already present as if waiting to be organized. 
Such an institution would not only meet the demand so forcibly urged by eminent 
scholars and statesmen, past and present, as a means of meeting our present defi- 
ciencies, and of securing to our country its proper rank among the most cultivated of 
all the great nations. It would also fulfill those high offices of which Washington 
and a long line of his illustrious successors thought so much in the way of harmon- 
izing our national life, and of essentially adding to the security of our free institutions. 
It would seem that the founding of the proposed University of the United States 
should not be longer delayed, and that this one-hundredth year since Washington's 
last appeal to Congress in this same behalf, and of his designation of lands for its 
use, may be deemed a most fitting time for a beginning of this great work. 
I remain, my dear sir, very respectfully, yours, 

J. B. Henderson, 
[jE.f- United States Senator.} 
Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, December 3, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 30th ultimo in reference to the conference at the Raleigh, 
in this city, to be convened on the 14th instant, touching the proposed University of 
the United States, is received. I am very much pleased to see that Bishop Hurst 
does not entirely dominate and control the views of the Methodist Church in refer- 
ence to this matter. After the building of the national university there is room 
enough in the District for each and all of the denominations of Christians to build 
and make successful their respective institutions of learning. 

Yours, truly, J. B. Henderson, 

\_Ex- United States Senator, etc. ] 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, January 25, 1898. 
My Dear Sir: I have yours in which you repeat to me the declaration of Senator 
Morrill, of Vermont, to the effect that "one gift of $100,000 would do more to move 
Congress than a multitude of great names." In this belief I fully concur with Sen- 
ator Morrill; and now in order to begin practical work toward the establishment of 
a great national university in Washington, I propose to constitute one of one hun- 
dred persons, who will each subscribe $1,000, to be paid by us respectively to the 
treasurer of the institution so soon as the Congress of the United States shall 
have resolved to appropriate for the same purpose a similar amount to be made 
available whenever the private subscriptions aforesaid shall have been fully paid. 
Yours truly, 

J. B. Henderson, 
^Formerly United States Senator from Missouri.} 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



122 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Washington, D. C, July 6, 1898. 
Dear GtOveenor: Yours of yesterday is received and contents most carefully noted. 
There is nothing within my power and range I would not do, or any sacrifice I 
would not gladly make, for the national-university cause now before the country. 
Truly yours, 

A. H. Garland, 
Formerly United States Senator and ex- Attorney- General of the United States. 
Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, December 23, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of yours of December 18, 
inviting me, in behalf of the committee you represent, to accept the place made 
vacant by the decease of the distinguished and lamented A. H. Garland, LL. D., as 
a member of the executive council of said committee. 

You will please accept for yourself and extend to the committee my thanks for the 
honor conferred, and accept the assurance that I shall endeavor faithfully to dis- 
charge the duties expected of me in this behalf. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours, H. A. Herbert, 

\_Ex- Secretary of the Navy. ] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



WiLDBAD, Germany, July 31, 1900. 
M.Y Dear Sir: Your favor of the 6th instant just received here, forwarded from 
Milwaukee. 

I don't imagine that my name will be of any benefit to you or further the cause of 
the university; but if you desire to use it, you have my permission with pleasure. 
You have displayed a wonderful amount of courage and endurance in your up-hill 
fight all these years. 

I am in Europe for a prolonged stay, partly for my wife's health and partly for the 
education of our children. 

Wishing you the success which you deserve, and it will be abundant, I remain 
yours, very truly, 

Jno. L. Mitchell, 
\_Ex- United States Sejiator.l 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Oshkosh, Wis., November 29, 1897. 

Dear Sir: Yours of the 27th instant, asking that I serve on a committee of one 
hundred to procure the establishment of the University of the United States, received. 
I think the undertaking and enterprise a laudable one, but at my age must decline 
to take an active part. I could not accept a position on any committee that I could 
not give my attention to, and I am not in condition to do so. 

Thanking you for thinking of me in this connection, I am, sir, very truly, yours, 

Philetds Sawyer, 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



[Ex- United States Senator.} 



Madison, Wis., January 9, 1898. 

My Dear Dr. Hoyt: I have both your recent favors of 31st ultimo and 2d instant, 
and read them with interest and an especial pleasure in the assurance that increasing 
promise of success attends the project for an university of the United States. Surely 
you can put my name on the committee if it be thought in anywise contributory. 

I wish I were possessed of the means, I would welcome the opportunity, and there 
are many who possess the fortune of whom I can not think without wonder they will 
miss it. They would crave it, too, could they but bring to their mind's eye_ a true 
vision of the usefulness they would be instrumental in establishing and the distinction 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 123 

which would ensue to their names. I do not personally know Mr. Armour, nor am 
I much in Chicago, but I shall try to keep an eye out for some of them, and it can 
never be foretold in what moment or from what source a benefaction is to come to 
the race. 

With compliments and best wishes. 

Yours, very truly, Wm. F. Vilas, 

[Ex- United States Senator, ex-Secretary of the Inter ior.l 
Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



The Augusta Chronicle, Augusta, Ga., July 17, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: I am in hearty sympathy with the movement for a national 
university. 

Yours, respectfully, Patrick Walsh, 

[Ex- United States Senator.} 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman, Washington, D. C. 



Washinc4T0N, D.'C, Februarys, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Please accept somewhat tardy acknowledgment of your kind congratu- 
latory letter of the 29th ultimo. I thank you most sincerely for your kind words of 
comm en dation . 

In the matter of the proposed national university, all I can say at the present time 
is that I am most earnestly in favor of its establishment on a scale commensurate 
with the grandeur of this Republic and the great field for usefulness which it could 
occupy, and which is now filled in no other way. 

Yours, truly, Jno. M. Thurston, 

[ United States Senator.} 
John W. Hoyt, Esq., Washington, D. C. 



Cheyenne, Wyo., October 22, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of October 13th came here during my absence. While I 
wish you every success in your endeavors to bring about the establishment of a 
national university I am not in a position to lend it any financial aid. You know 
that I live in a new State, and the demands that are made upon me amount to a great 
many dollars every j^ear. We are always trying to build up something, and nothing 
seems to go forward without many embarrassments. 

Very truly, yours, Joseph M. Carey, 

{Ex-United States Senator.} 
Gov. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



42 Warren Street, New York, March 27, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 25th inst., and am 
pleased to learn that the Senate has reported' favorably upon the university bill. 
You surely deserve great credit for the ability and energy with which you are man- 
aging this matter, and you should certainly be supported. 

******* 

I am, very sincerely, yours, 

Oscar S. Straus. 
Gov. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



42 Warren Street, New York City, November 26, 1897. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: Such a university [as the national university] should 
receive the support of the President and Department of State, as among its depart- 
ments should be a school of international law and diplomacy connected with the 



124 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Department of State, to equip men for the consular and diplomatic service (all 
excepting the head of missions ) . This is the same as all Governments have where 
the foreign office maintains within its organization a school or branch department 
where young men are trained for the foreign service. 

I am writing this in haste, giving only rough outline of my idea. 
Very truly, yours, 

OscAK S. Straus, 
\_Mmister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary to Turkey. '\ 



42 Warren Street, New* York, June 10, 1898. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: Accept my sincere thanks for your kind letter of con- 
gratulation upon my appointment. I do hope and trust that the council [of the 
national university committee] will succeed in having the university of the United 
States incorporated, and that one of its features will be a school or department of 
international law and diplomacy in connection with the Department of State. I 
believe such an idea prominently put forward when our present war is at an end 
will appeal to many who have heretofore not been sufficiently interested in the 
university. 

I am convinced that it is of the very highest importance that the peaceful arm of 
the Government, namely, its consular and diplomatic agents, should be as carefully 
trained as our admirals and generals. 

Believe me, very sincerely, yours, Oscar S. Straus, 

[Minister to Turkey. ] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Washington, D. C. 



Hartford, Conn., February 18, 1897. 

Dear Dr. Hoyt: Your letter in the matter of my going on to any existing list of 
individuals interested in the Washington university, or the national university at 
Washington, came duly to hand, but was laid aside — or rather thrust aside — by press- 
ing calls on my attention. It is too late for a man 86 years old to take any position 
which implies his giving personal attention to its duties, and I have always shunned 
mere platform positions. 

I am on record as supporter of Washington's national university proposition as far 
back as 1832, on the centennial of Washington's birthday of that year, by a college 
fraternity (the Parthenon) here in Hartford (Washington, now Trinity College), of 
the then forgotten efforts made by Washington for the founding of a national university 
at Washington. Again, in 1846-47, in a public meeting held in Washington, in ref- 
erence to the reorganization of educational institutions of the citj^, and in subsequent 
meetings at Georgetown and Alexandria, I did the same thing. In 1867, in beginning 
a series of papers on ' ' Education and national interest, ' ' in the American Journal of 
Education (Vol. XVII), I cited all the official recommendations and other recogni- 
tions by Washington of such an institution, and in a continuation of the same series 
in later volumes I added subsequent recognitions by Jefferson, Washington, Monroe, 
Adams, and others. In 1876, in, remarks which I had occasion to make in the cen- 
tennial celebration, under the auspices of the mayor of this city, I dwelt on the prob- 
able results if the recommendations by Washington had been carried out. These 
remarks are reported in the address published in Centennial Orations, by Treat in 
New York, in that year; and in a paper read before the Harrison Veterans on the 
centennial inauguration of a national government, 1889, I remarked on the same 
theme. 

Very respectfully, Henry Barnard, 

First United States Commissioner of Education, etc. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



My Dear Governor Hoyt: 



Eaton Grange, Waterloo, N. H., July 20, 1901. 



The same feeling against a national university is natural as there was against a 
National Government; but as the National Government is distinct from State gov- 
ernments, does not take from their effectiveness, but adds to them, so with a uni- 
versity of the United States. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 125 

I hope all who approve will come to see the place of the national university in 
their own interest, in the interest of the whole, as did the fathers in making the 
nation. May all interested have the same care in making a national university as 
the fathers had in making a nation. 
I am thankful you are so well again. Take good care of your health. 

John Eaton, 
[Ex- United States Commissioner of Education.'\ 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Washington, D. V. 



Office Commissioners op the District of Columbia, 

Washington, November 30, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: I have your letter of November 28, and received last evening at my 
hotel the documents which you kindly promised me with regard to the national 
university. 

I hope to read them at length soon, and to l)e able to render you some assistance 
in this most laudable enterprise. 

Very respectfully, John W. Ross, Commissioner. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Office Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 

Washington, Februarg 25, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I acknowledge most gratefully the receipt of your esteemed favor of 
February 24, referring to my address before the school children on the 23d of Feb- 
ruary, and inviting me to permit my name to be used as a meml^er of the national 
university committee of one hundred. I thank you very much for the courteous 
invitation, and will be pleased to serve in that capacity. 

I have also to acknowledge receipt of the documents to which you refer, with 
regard to the same subject-matter, which I have read with interest. 
Very truly, yours, 

John W. Ross, Commissioner. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt. 



Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 

Washington, D. C, February 27, 1901. 
Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday, 
in w^hich you are pleased to suggest that I take a practical interest in the establish- 
ment of the proposed university of the United States, and permit my name to be 
used as a member of the national committee. It would give me very great pleasure 
to comply with your request, if it was possible for me to take the practical interest 
which you desire me to take in the enterprise. But I do not see how it is possible 
for me to take that interest. I find my judicial duties very engrossing; and, with 
advancing years and somewhat enfeebled health, I feel that I ought to decline new 
duties, which I could not discharge in the effective way contemplated by your great 
enterprise. 

Yours, very respectfully, M. F. Morris. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Stanworth, Princeton, N. J. , October 24, 1896. 
My' Dear Sir: I thank you for your letter with its inclosures. No suggestion for 
improvement of the bill occurs to me which I find practicable, although I wish the 
national university might be the creation of the great existing universities — their 
friend and not their rival. This could only be gained by recognizing them specific- 
ally, and I confess the difficulties seem enormous. 

Yours, respectfully, Wm. M. Sloane, 

\_Ex-Minister to Italy, etc."} 
Hon. John W. Hoy't, Washington, D. C. 

[Minister Sloane seems not to be aware that the plan of the national university is 
such that it has won the support of all the universities of the country, but a very 
few, and that it aims to be an institution exclusively graduate and otherwise so 
different that it could in no sense prove a "rival" to any.] 



126 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Hotel d'Iena, 26 et 28 Avenue d'Iena, Paris, 

December 17, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: Your kind letter has been too long unanswered. My excuse is that 
it was long in reaching me, and since then I have had the distractions of a traveler. 
The draft of the bill which you inclose does, I admit, make it possible to avoid the 
only objection I feel. * * * If, however, the bill passes in its present shape, and 
the first university council be judiciously selected, my objections will be met. 
Respectfully, yours, 

Wm. M. Sloane, 
\_Former Minister to Italy.'] 
Hon. J. W. HoYT, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, January 22, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of the loth instant inclosing copy of the 
national university bill now pending. It meets with my hearty approval, and I hope 
the bill will pass in its present form. I think the Government should not only 
establish such an university, but should also appropriate liberally for its support. I 
certainly hope that your earnest efforts in this direction will be rewarded with success. 
Yours, truly, 

Ellis Spear, 
\_Ex- Commissioner of Patents.] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Department op the Interior, 
Office of Commissioner of Railroads, 

Washington, D. C, February 16, 1900. 
Dear Sir: It seems to me that the establishment of a great national university 
in Washington City, after the plan of your committee, would give an impetus to 
higher education that would be felt throughout the entire world. The surprise is 
that the nation, so ambitious in other directions, has been tardy in giving its aid to 
the establishment of a powerful institution of learning at its capital. 
Yours, very truly, 

James Longstreet, 
\_C0m7nissi0ner of Railroads.'] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Department of the Interior, General Land Office, 

Washington, D. C. , June 25, 1898. 
Sir: I have received with much pleasure the circulars and extract relative to your 
services in behalf of the national university, which you so kindly sent to me, and I 
am gratified to read the expressions so highly commendatory of your efforts toward 
the founding of an institution which will undoubtedly be greatly beneficial to man- 
kind, and I trust the ultimate consummation of your noble efforts may gratify your 
friends and afford to you a well-merited reward and recognition. 
Very respectfully, 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



BiNGER Hermann, Commissioner. 



Office of the Chief op Engineers, U. S. Army, 

Washington, D. C, December 11, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I thank you for your thoughtful courtesy in sending me copies of 
the papers in reference to a national university. 

In the list of members, which seems to include nearly all of the distinguished 
presidents of colleges and scientific institutions, I am sorry not to find those of the 
superintendents of the two great Government educational institutions, the Military 
Academy at West Point, N. Y., and the Naval Academy at Annapolis. This, of 



UlSriVERSlTY OF THE UNITED STATES. 127 

course, was not intentional. [The superintendents of the United States Mihtary 
and Naval academies have since joined the national university committee.] 
I wish you success in the great work you have undertaken. 
Yours, very truly, 

John M. Wilson, 
Brigadier-General, CMef of Engineers, U. S. A. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Bureau of Steam Engineering, Navy Department, 

Washington, D. C, December 4, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, together with the 
accompanying papers, and am pleased to say that I heartily indorse the efforts of 
our patriotic and educated citizens to establish a post-graduate university of the high- 
est possible standing at Washington, D. C, to be known as the "national univer- 
sity," without sectional creed or control; to be as broad and deep in its teachings as 
the free air of the universe ; welcoming from all lands races and colors of men to 
give and to receive that thorough scientific training that can only be acquired at a 
national university. 

I am, sir, respectfully, Geo. W. Melville, E. D., 

Chief Engineer, U. S. A^avg, 
and Engineer in Chief of the Navy of the United States. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Treasury Department, Office of the Coast and Geodetic; Survey, 

Washington, D. C, October ^5, 1897. 
My' Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of October 19, touching the duties of the 
promoters of the university of the United States, I have to say that I am in hearty 
sympathy with the project and will do what I can to aid it in every possible way. 
Very truly, yours, 

W. W. DuFFiELD, [Superintendent.'] 
Hon John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, 

Washington, October 23, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: Your recent note is just at hand and is under careful consideration. 
It would seem to me desirable that the leading supporters of the plan for the estab- 
lishment of a national university should hold a conference with the view of determin- 
ing (1) the best form of organization and procedure, and (2) the best method of 
counteracting the antagonistic influence which you mention. My own idea is, as you 
know, that the national university should occupy a plane essentially distinct from 
that of any other educational institution in the country or the world; but I hardly 
feel like urging this idea, pending the appearance of the magazine article in which 
it is set forth somewhat more fully and explicitly than would be possible in informal 
conference. Meantime I am constantly casting about for opportunities to promote 
the scheme. Incidentally, let me say that it has for some time been my intention 
that a certain advance of $30 to the university fund is not to be repaid me, but to be 
added to the sum previously subscribed as a donation to your most commendable 
enterprise. 

With great respect, yours, cordially, W J McGee, 

[Ethnologist in Charge.] 
Hon." John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 

Washington, D. C, March 18, 1898. 
Dear Sir: Please accept my hearty thanks for the literature you have just sent me 
concerning the national university. I have glanced it over hastily and shall read it 
with care later, so as to learn more fully of the movement, which I hope may ulti- 
mately prove to be a great success. 

Very sincerely, yours, J. S. Diller. 

Hon, John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



128 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

United States Department of Agriculture, 
Division op Vegetable Physiology and Pathology, 

Washington, D. C, January 25, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your note of January 15, with the proposed bill for the establishment 
of the university of the United States, is at hand. It seems to me that the plan 
proposed in the bill is an excellent one and would doubtless, if carried out, meet all 
the requirements of a national university. I trust that it may receive favorable con- 
sideration of Congress and the hearty support of everybody interested in higher 
education. 

Very truly, yours, Albert F. Woods, 

\_Assistant Chief.'] 
"Hon. John W. Ho\"t, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washiyigton, D. C. 



Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, 

Washington, D. C, January 23, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: Eeplying to your communication of January 15 regarding the 
foundation of a university of the United States, I desire to say that I find nothing to 
object to in the plan, and sincerely hope that you will succeed in carrying out the 
grand scheme outlined. • 

Yours, truly, W. H. Holmes, 

Head Curator, Anthroj)ology . 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, B. C. 



New Haven, Conn., February 22, 1897. 
My Dear Governor Hoy't: I beg to thank you for your esteemed favor inclosing 
university documents and to wish you and the movement all success. You have 
certainly won the admiration of all its wellwishers by the resolute steadfastness of 
your efforts. With great regards, 

I am, cordially, yours, E. Talbot, 

\_Bisliop of the Protestant Episcopal Church.'] 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Nashville, May 12, 1896. 
Governor John Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C: 

Yours of April 24 was forwarded to me from San Francisco, but the Senate docu- 
ments of which you speak have not come to hand. The subject of a national uni- 
versity is one of profound interest to me, and I am giving it my earnest attention. 

I am one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and am an 
ex officio trustee of Vanderbilt University. From 1867 to 1871 I was superintendent 
of public instruction of the State of California. During my term of office the Uni- 
versity of California was organized. I mention these facts to indicate that my interest 
in this important matter is not perfunctory nor wholly unintelligent. Your signa- 
ture, John Wesley Hoyt, gave me a home feeling as I read your communication. 

My address for the present is Nashville, Tenn. 

I am, very respectfully, yours, O. P. Fitzgerald. 



Baltimore, Md., April 30, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I have your letter of April 28, telling me of an apparent opposition on 
the part of the Methodists to the proposal for a national university. I am very sorry 
to hear of it, but I do not think that their opposition will injure the project. I 
believe it will help it. It would be pleasanter, however, if we could get along with- 
out it, and I renew the expression of my own very hearty interest in the movement. 
Yours, truly, 

William Paret, Bishop of Maryland. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 129 

The University Association for Educational Extension, 

Chlatgo, Noremher 1:3, 1S97. 
My Dear Governor: I am with yon, as I always have been, foi- the estabhshment 
of a great national university at Washington. 

I hope and pray you may see the consummation of your efforts in the near future. 
Very truly, yours, 

Samuel Fallows, 
Bishop of the Tleformcd Episcopal Church. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Chicago, III., October ^S, 1897. 
My Dear Dr. Hoyt: Your letter of October 19, in regard to the university of the 
United States, is received. I have read your letter with much interest, and I am 
glad for any signs of encouragement which you may see. I am so loaded with work 
that I could not undertake anything in the way of State organization in behalf of the 
university. I think it desirable to hold a meeting of the national committee in 
Washington. I am to be there in February to speak in some of the Presbyterian 
churches in behalf of foreign missions, but I could not be there before February. 

I doubt if it is possible to do imich for the endowment of fellowships, lectureships, 
etc., for reasons which I need not explain. I am sorry to learn that you are in 
your devoted zeal losing money in this good cause. There ought to be in Washing- 
ton one or two rich, patriotic, and farseeing men or women who would take hold 
with you. 

Faithfully and cordially, yours, 

John Henry Barrows, 
\_L((te President World's Congress of Religions, World's Colnmhiun Exposition.'] 

Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Washinc4ton, D. C, December 9, 1S97. 
My Dear Sir: I thank you for the circular of information, of recent date just 
received, concerning the proposed national university. It is a project in which I 
have long felt the deepest interest, and which I should he glad to serve in any way 
possible. 

Very respectfully, 

Teunis S. Hamlin. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, February 18, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: It will give me real pleasure to contribute my mite of influence 
toward the realization of that purpose so dear to the heart of Washington. I will be 
very glad of any documents that will help me to a full knowledge of the situation. 
Especially would I like to know about that fund which should by this time have 
amountecl to nearly five millions. 

Very respectfully, Alex. Kent, 

[Pastor People's Church.'] 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Sacramento, Cal., October 30, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of yours of October 9, relative to the establishment of 
the national university. Permit me to say in a general way that anything I can do 
consistently with the representatives from California that you can suggest will be 
done cheerfully. I notice that Senator Turpie, of Indiana, is one of the gentlemen 
that need light on the question. Let me suggest that you write directly to Dr. 
Jordan, of Stanford University, who may know Senator Turpie personally, as they 
both hail from Indiana. 

Wishing you every success, I am, yours, very truly, 

S. T. Black, 
Superintendent of Public Instruction. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 

S. Rep. 945 9 



130 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Denver, Colo., March 17, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Your letter offering me a place on the national university eomniittee of 
one hundred is at hand, and I thank you for the honor. 

I am much interested in the movement, which I think promises great things, and 
it will be a great pleasure to be one of the favored few who ha\e the privilege of 
serving it ofhcially. 

Very truly, yours, Grace Espy Patton, 

Sime Superintendent of Fublic Instruction. 
John W. Hoyt, 

Cliairman National University Committee, Wasliiariton, D. C. 



Department of Public Instruction, 

Boise City, Idaho, Noremher 8, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Documents received. Thank you. I will do all I can with our Senators 
and Representatives. 

You have my full consent to add my name to your committee. 
Very respectfully, yours, 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Louis N. B. Anderson, 

Superintendent. 



Des Moines, Iowa, April S8, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I have your circular of April 29, in regard to the university of the 
United States. I am not State superintendent of public instruction now, and I think 
perhaps it would be well for you to try to interest that officer. Please address Hon. 
E.. C. Barrett, Des Moines, Iowa. I shall be glad at all times, in private life, to 
speak a good word for your enterprise, but have no means to contribute, and have 
but little influence along the lines where you most need them. At any time I can 
do anything with our Members of Congress or Senators I shall be very glad to do it 
for 3'ou. I think such communications should go to the State suiierintendent, as he 
has charge of State affairs. 

Yours, cordially, Henry Sabin, 

\_Ex-State Svp)erintendent of Public Instruction of lovo.l 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Frankfort, Ky., July ^1, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 14th is received. I regret that my own affairs forbid my 
spending * * * time * * * for the promotion of a grand scheme against 
which no valid objection (to me) has yet been presented. 
Yours, truly, 

Ed. Porter Thompson, 
Ex-State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kentucky. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Department of Education, 
Baltimore, Md., July 21, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor containing information in reference to 
university scheme. I am in entire accord with the project, and trust it will meet 
with proper encoura-gement. Whatever 1 can do to help you realize the purposes 
you have in view will be done cheerfully. 

With best wishes for. the success of the proposed university, and again offering my 
services to promote its interests in every possible way, I am. 
Yours, very truly, 

M.Bates Stephens, [State Superintendent.] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington D. C. 



UNIYEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 131 

Department of EorcATiox, 

Carson Citi/, Xev., .hvae :U, 1S96. 

Dear Sir: Your circular letter just received. You seem to think the oi^position 
of this Methodist institution something of a factor, but I do not believe it will stand 
much in our way when the proper time comes. I never even heard of their insti- 
tution before. 

I assure you that the people of Nevada are for education, and spend more money 
per capita than any other State in this Union for that purpose. When the time 
comes, I think I can almost assure you that our Senators and Representatives will 
be on the side of liberal education. 



Yours, for lil)eral education, 
Mr. JoHX W. HoYT, Wa.^Jiinglon, B.C. 



H. C. Cutting, State Supermtendent. 



Teachers' National Fraternal Benefit Association, 

Lincoln, Nebr., January 10, 1896. 
Dear Sir: I prepared, presented, and put through our State teachers' association 
a strong resolution on the national university. Shall try to send you a copy as 
soon as I can get it from the secretary. 
Accept thanks for your interest in the personal matter of which I wrote you. 
I received the leaflets sent, for which also accept thanks. 

I hope Mr. Hairer will be willing to so modify his bill as to provide for a univer- 
sity in the real sense of the term. 

Yours, truly, A. K. Goudy, 

Formerly State Super'mtende'id ofFuhlic Instruction of Nebraska. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Waslnngton, I). C. 



Department of Public Instruction, 

Lincoln, Kebr. , June 28, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of June 23, I will saj' that I am in favor of a 
national university if it can be made a leading institution in all fields of knowledge. 
In my judgment it should not be restricted to a few lines of work, as some might 
desire, nor should it be a sort of political institution. I hope we may have a great 
national university that will be as truly a leader in the nations of the world as is 
our great country. 

Sincerely yours, 

W. R. Jackson, State Superiniendent. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



National Educational Association of the United States, 

Albany, N. Y., March 29, 1897. 
Dear Sir: There is no reason why the National Educational Association would not 
still favor the national university proposition. 
Yours, very sincerely, 

Charles R. Skinner, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Department of Public Instruction, 

Albany, N. Y., November 1, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I have received your various circulars concerning a national university. 
So far as possible, consistent with the pressing demands which are made upon me 
just now, I will give the matter my attention. I do not feel, however, that for the 
next few months I can be of very much service to you except to interest Representa- 
tives in Congress with whom I have a personal acquaintance. 
Yours, very respectfully, 

Charles R. Skinner, 

Staie Superintendent. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



132 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Office of State Commissioner of Common Schools, 

Columbus, Ohio, Jiive 30, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I am cjuite in sympathy with the idea of having a great national uni- 
versity at Washington, and will gladly assist the movement in any reasonable way 
within mj^ power. 

Courteously, yours, 

Lewis D. Bonebrake, Commissioner. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, Waslnngton, D. C. 



Department of Public Instruction, 

Ilarrisb'urg, Pa., November 3, 1S97. 
Dear Sir: I feel annoyed that I can give the projected university at Washington 
so little attention and help. But I will do all I can to aid you by appeals to our 
Senators and Congressmen. 
Yours, truly, 

N. C. ScHAEPFER, Superintendent. 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Columbia, S. C, July 3, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Matters of great importance and very pressing have kept me from 
answering your communication of June 23. I am very sorry that I have been unable 
to give the matter my attention. Our summer schools and a series of other meetings 
throughout the State have occupied my attention completely. However, I will say 
that I heartily indorse the efforts to establish a national university, and whatever 
aid I can render toward this end will be gladly given. 
Very truly, yours, 

Jno. J. McMahan, 
State Superintendent of Education. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Office Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

Olympia, Wash., July 5, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: I will be honored to serve in promoting the interests of the national 
university in any manner possible, and am at your command at any time. Hoping 
your patriotic efiorts will soon find merited results, I beg to remain, 
Very truly, 

Frank J. Browne, 

\_Superintendent. ] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Department of Public Instruction, 

Madison, Wis., August 11, 1900. 

My Dear Sir: Your circular letter of June 23 reached the office just as I was leav- 
ing the State, and I have been absent almost continuously since that date. 

I beg to say that I am in hearty sympathy with the movement for the creation of 
a national university. It seems to me that the General Government is the proper 
source from which such an institution should be organized. I should be glad to 
cooperate with the committee in any way. 

Yours, truly, L. D. Haney, 



John W. Hoyt, Esq., Washington, D. C. 



State Superintendent. 



Department of Education, 
Little Rock, Ark., July 7, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: I have your circular letter of recent date. Permit me to say in 
reply that the movement has my liearty sympathy, and to assure you that I shall be 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 133 

glad to do anj^thing in my power consistently to aid in securing the establishment of 
an institution that had its inception in the mind of Washington and which formed 
the crowning feature in our educational system as outlined by Jefferson. 
Very truly, 

J. J. DOYNE, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Agricultural and Mechanical College, 

Normal, Ala., April ^S, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 27th instant. If the addition of my name will be of any 
service in the interest of the noble effort which you are making, you have my per- 
mission to use it. 
Very truly, 

W. H. CouNciLL, President. 
Mr. J. W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



University' of Alabama, 

University, Ala., July ^, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I beg to acknoAvledge with thanks the receipt of your favor of the 23d 
ultimo. It will afford me pleasure to serve on the national committee to promote 
the establishment of the university of the United States. 
Yours, very truly, 

Jas. K. Powers. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Grand Union Hotel, New York City, 

November 23, 1895. 
Dear Sir: I take great pleasure in adding my indorsement to the plan for the 
national post-graduate university at "Washington. 
Yours, very truly, 

Booker T. Washinc^ton, 
Principal \_Taskegee Normal and Industricd Institute, Tuskegee, Ala.l. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National Unirersity Committee, Washington, I). C. 



Talladega College, 

Peru, Ohio, Jidy 9, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your favor of Jmie 23, writing as chairman of national university 
committee and inviting me to a place on said committee, the revised list of which is 
soon to be published, is received. I am glad to respond favorably to your invitation, 
as I greatly desire to see such a university established. 

Very respectfully, yours, " G. W. Andrews, 

\_Acting President.'] 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C 



Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 

Auburn, Ala., November 3, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter in regard to the 
proposed university of the United States. 
I hope Congress 'will soon legalize it, and thus have a beginning. 
With my best wishes for the success of the university, I am, very truly, yours, 

Wji. Le Roy Broun, President. 
Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



134 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Arkansas Industrial University, 
Fayetteville, Ark., December 10, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I beg leave to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 22d ultimo, and 
also Report No. 4S9 (Senate) and other documents in relation to the proposed estab- 
lishment of the university of the United States. 

The reasons why such a university should be established are briefly but clearly 
presented in "an outline of your memorial to the United States Senate, 1892." All 
the reasons stated do not seem to me equally valid, nor do I feel confident that the 
results anticipated would be all attained. But I am persuaded that the reasons for 
the establishment of such an institution outweigh the objections against it, and 
therefore I favor it. 

Very truly, yours, 

Jno. L. Buchanan, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Washington., D. C. 



University of Arkansas, 
Fayetteville, Ark., January 19, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your esteemed favor of the 15th instant. I am still 
in favor of the university of the United States on the understanding that it be so 
organized and conducted as not to come into competition with other long-established 
and Avell-endowed institutions. It seems to me that there is a large field of usefulness 
for such an institution beyond that to which any of our present institutions can 
ever attain. I shall communicate with the Senators from this State in regard to this 
important matter. 



Very truly, yours, 
Mr. John W. Hoy't, Washington, D. C. 



Jno. L. Buchanan, President. 



Branch Normal College, 
Pine Bluff, Ark. , January 18, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Referring to your favor of January 15, I have the honor to say that I 
most heartily approve of the projected university of the United States, provided 
that it shall ioe open to all citizens without regard to race. I shall condemn it with 
equal heartiness if such shall not be the case. 

Yours, truly, J. C. Corbin, 

\_President'\. 
John "Wesley Hoyt, Wasldngton, D. C. 



Hendrix College, 
Coau-ay, Ark., October 31, 1901. 
Dear Sir: I have recently received your circular and article concerning the estab- 
lishment of a national university at Washington and have read same with interest. 
While I am heartily in sympathy with the purpose of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
to create a great university at AVashington, I see no argument against a truly national 
university utilizing lil^raries and collections of the Government. In my Twentieth 
Century Educational Problems, page 18, I mention a national university as a thing 
to be desired. I send you the book and trust that you may find time to read it. 

Our new Congressman, C. C. Reid, is a young man of literar}': taste and strong 
public spirit. While I have never talked with him about a national university, I 
feel reasonably sure that he will favor your movement. I shall be glad if you confer 
with him. He is a personal friend and I shall use an early opportunitj^ to present 
the matter to his notice. I shall be glad to aid in any way. 
Yours, truly, 

A. C. Millar, \_President.'] 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Leland Stanford Junior University', 

Stanford University, Cal, Jtdy 29, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I think that I was fully able to cover the points made by Dr. Butler in 
his rather blind attack upon the national university. His sole idea was that some- 
thing like Columbia or Chicago was to be set up at Washington and that such an 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. ] 35 

institution is unnecessary, which is true. The national university should be a place 
where men can carry on investigations. I think it should be without examinations 
and without degrees, but with sufficient faculty to make the resources of the national 
capital available for the highest educational purposes. 
Very truly, yours, 

David S. Jordan, 

[Prci<ident.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Leland Stanford Junior University, 
Stanford University, Ccd., December 2, 1S99. 
Dear Sir: I had not heard of the action of the university committee of the 
National Educational Association, but I should not lay very much stress upon its 
findings. I found out this summer that Professor Butler was entirely ignorant of 
what has been at least my understanding of what you wished to accomplish. It has 
been my understanding that your plan is to develop an institution hi which original 
research may be carried out along th(jse lines in which Washington offers sucii excel- 
lent material, with the gradual development of work in other allied lines for which 
the resources of the city are not yet adequate. Professor Butler's idea seemed to be 
that you were trying to make a second Columbia University. This, of course, 
would not be wise. am totally opposed to the granting of degrees in the national 
university, Vjecause the men working there should not desire them, though in most 
respects such an arrangement would be harmless enough. But unless the national 
university is entirely out of competition with other institutions, doing a class of 
work they can not reach, it has no special reason for being called into existence. 

I see no point in the objection that some future time would be l)etter adav)ted to 
the founding of the university. The time to start the university is when it can be 
started. Once established, it will take care of itself and purify and perfect itself. 
Very truly, yours, 

David S. Jordan, 

\_Prcsidenl.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



California College, 
OaUand, Cal., November 4, 1897. 

My Dear Sir: Yours is at hand. I am glad to know that the interest in the uni- 
versity of the United States is growing. I consider the move one of great importance 
and one in which every true American citizen should be interested. It is true that 
many of our noble men and women are directly interested in denominational and 
State universities or in private educational enterprises, as are Mrs. Hearst, Mrs. Stan- 
ford, Mr. Rockefeller, and scores of others; nevertheless there should he thousands 
in this broad land who ought to be interested in a national university. I believe 
there are, if they can be brought into touch with your thought. I am glad to know 
what ]Mr. Smith and others about Boston are doing in this matter of national art, 
etc. Glad, too, that the women are getting into the work. They will do wonderful 
things if thoroughly aroused. 

I think a rally of the national committee at Washington would be a good thing. 
I can not, however, attend. The only hope of success is to agitate. I tiiink it possi- 
ble to enlist jiersons of means who will start endowments. Such would certainly be 
the strongest argument to Congress. 

It may be best to organize State committees. President Jordan, of Stanford Uni- 
versity would, I think, be the best man on the Pacific coast to lead such work. We 
are so scattered in California that it is hard to get educators together from the 
extreme parts of the coast. 

I may say that after more than ten years' service in California College I have 
resignetl its presidency, and may possibly go East before spring. Should I do so I 
shall be in Washington, and shall take pleasure in seeing you. 
Most sincerely, 

Samuel B. Morse, 

\_Ex-President.^ 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



136 UISriVERSlTY UF THE UNITED STATES. 

The State Agricultural College, 

Fort Collins, Colo., May 1, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your kind favor of the 27th ultimo. As my connec- 
tion with the college will terminate September 1, 1899, I do not believe the use of 
my name in connection with the revised list of members of the national committee 
would be of any service to the cause which you so ably repi-esent. As a private citi- 
zen, 1 shall ])e glad to give your committee all the assistance in my power. I sym- 
pathize deeply with the object you have in view, and hope to see the speed}'' success 
of the plans you have under way. 
Truly, yours, 

Alston Ellis, President. 
Hon. John Wesley Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



University of Colorado, 
Boulder, Colo., December 19, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I inclose a copy of a letter sent by this mail in response to a request 
from President Harper. Doubtless j'ou have received a copy of the subcommittee 
report to be discussed in Washington this month. If not. President Harper will 
furnish you a cop j^ on request. I attended the Charleston meeting and listened to 
the informal report of progress by President Harper, chairman of the committee of 
fifteen of the national council of education of the National Educational Association. 
I took a very strong position in the discussion against the overhastj^ conclusions, 
and especially the unwarranted publishing of them at the time when they were 
intended to intiuence the action of Congress. This was done apparent!}' in the 
name of the National Educational Association before any report had been made to 
the National Educational Association. In the council of education, which appointed 
this committee, a resolution was passed to the effect that the council postpone any 
expression of opinion regarding the establishing of a national university. This was 
intended as a thrust at the premature action of the committee. The council also 
referred to its otticers, with power to act, the proposition to invite you and other 
members of the executive committee to appear before the national council of educa- 
tion and take part in the discussion next year, should the report be presented at that 
time. I trust you and a strong delegation will appear before the committee in 
Washington this month. I mean the conunittee of which President Harper is 
chairman. 

Very truly, yours, 

James H. Baker, 

\_President.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman of National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



University of Colorado, 
Boulder, Colo., December 19, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: I have received a copy of the report on a national university, 
together with your courteous invitation to offer suggestions from my standpoint. 
You already know my attitude toward the problem, but I am willing to note some 
of the more important points. 
I believe in anational.university: 

1. Because of the weight)' reasons furnished by the history of the project. 

2. Because it would especially promote, in the students using its privileges, a sense 
of the ' ' equalities ' ' so necessary to democrac}'. 

3. Because it would be the complement of the public-school system of the United 
States. 

4. Because it would open to use of advanced students the immense opportunities 
for research controlled by the National Government, without compelling them to 
ally themselves with some particular national denominational university. 

5. Because the national legislators and the jieople would thus foster an ideal inter- 
est ideally. 

I believe that State universities as well as those on a private foundation are neces- 
sary for the best deA'elopment of our institutions and think it would be a serious 
mistake if the great denominational schools should oppose a national univei'sity. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 137 

Supposing that a national university is not founded and maintained by the Govern- 
.ment and the present scheme (that of your report) [the report of the connnittee of 
fifteen of the national council of education of the National Educational Association] 
obtains favorable consideration, I object to any feature of the scheme whicli a])iiears 
to be in the interest of a few wealthy institutions. The Government should offer, 
freely, opportunities to every al^le and ambitious young man in America — a graduate 
of any college or imiversity of approved standing, whether it have twenty-five gradu- 
ate students or one — for research at the national capital. No State government will 
ever vote money for its State university to use in maintaining a school for research 
in Washington — and the State universities should be benefited by the proposed 
movement. 

I hope that nothing will be done and that no influence will be used by any of our 
leading universities that will place them in an equivocal position before the people. 
The State institutions, and the small colleges and universities of the better class, and 
the people have an interest in this problem and their view should not be ignored. 
Very truly, yours. 



Dr. "William R. Hakper, Chicago, III. 



James H. Baker, President. 



Office of STORRS_Ac4RicuLTrKAL Collecje, 

' iSton-.'i, Conn., April ^S, 1899. 
Dear Sir: You may use my name in the revised list of members of the national 
committee mentioned in your letter of April 27, 1899. 
Yours, very truly. 



John W. Hoyt, CJtairinan, Wa.^iinrjion, D. C. 



Geo. W. Flixt, President. 



Delaware College, 
Keirnrk, Del., November 24, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I have received your letter of the 22d instant, and I desire to say that 
you have permission to use my name as you desire. I shall urge our Representative 
and Senators to support the pending bill and trust it [the pending national univer- 
sity bill] may reach early passage. 

Yours, truly, Geo. A. Harter, President. 

Dr. JoHX W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. 



State Collec4e, 
Dover, Del, May 3, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Your favor requesting permission to use my name in the list of members 
of the "national committee" is at hand. 

I feel myself honored by the suggestion, and veiy cheerfully comply. I shall be 
glad to do anything in my power to aid in this wonderfully broad and comprehensive 
movement. 

Respectfully, yours, W. C. Jasox, President. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



The Catholic University of America, 

Washington, D. C, April 16, 1896. 
My' Dear Goverxor Hoyt: Accept my thanks for j'our kindness in sending me the 
Congressional documents connected with the proposed national university. Accept 
also my thanks for your very kind estimate of my attitude in regard to the project. 
We will do the best we can here to give the very highest and best education, but we 
W'ill do nothing to hinder others from doing as well or better if they can. 
Very truly, yours, 

John J. Keane, Rector. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



138 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

John B. Stetson University, 
De Land, Fla., December 6, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I do not remember to have received any request from you with 
respect to the using of my name in the matter of promoting the estalDhshment of the 
university of the United >States. I certainly should have responded to such a request, 
as I am heartily in favor of it, and shall be glad to do anything in my power to pro- 
mote the work. 

Very cordially, yours, 

J. F. Forbes, 

\_President.'\ 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



EoLLiNs College, Winter Park, Fla. , January 15, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of November 28 aiTived during my absence on a business 
trip, hence the long delay in answering. From what I can gain from perusal of the 
document sent me, I am most heartily in favor of the establishment of the proposed 
University of the United States. I believe it would be an institution such as can be 
satisfactorily had in no other location and under no other auspices. Use my name, 
as you suggest, as a member of the national committee, and believe me, 
Respectfully, yours, 

Geo. M. Ward, 

[President. ] 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Florida Agricultural CoLLECiE and Experiment Station, 

Lake City, Fla., May 2, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I acknowledge receipt of various valuable documents relating to the 
projected national university. 

I shall be pleased to cooperate with you in this cause to the extent of my ability 
and opportunities. 
Respectfully, 

W. F. YocuM, President. 
J. W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Comuiittee, Washington, D. C. 



Florida Agricultural College and Experiment Station, 

Lake City, Fla., January 19, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I heartily agree with the proposition to make the educational appliances 
now assembled at the capital of our nation available through a national university. 
Any service which I can render to the object to this end will be cheerfully given. 
Yours, truly, 

W. F. YocuM, 

[President.'] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



State Normal and Industrial College, 

Tallahassee, Fla., April 29, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 27th instant in re University of the United States was 
received bj^ due course of mail. If my humble name and still humbler efforts can 
in the least help to facilitate the patriotic measure in which you are engaged, I shall 
deem myself honored thereby; my name is therefore at your command. 
Very respectfully, 

. T. D. Tucker, President. 
Hon. J. Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 139 

State Normal and Industrial College, 

Tallahassee, Fla., January 30, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: Your favor 26th instant is at hand. 

I again regret to state that I have not yet received copy of the bill in the matter 
referred to in your letter. 
Wishing you success in your efforts to inaugurate a great national university, 
I am, respectfully, 

I. D. Tucker, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, WasJrington, D. C. 



University of Idaho, 
Moscorv, Idaho, November 29, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Certainly if there is anything that I can do to promote so worthy a 
project as the university of the United States, I shall onlj^ be too glad to tender my 
services. 

Wishing you unbounded success, I am, yours, truly, 

F. B. Gault, President. 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The University of Chicago, 

Chicago, October 29, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: I have received your letter of October 24 and will give the bill which 
you have sent me careful consideration. I trust that it may now go through. 



Yours, truly, 
Hon. Johx W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. 



William R. Harper, President. 



The University of Chicago, 

Chicago, August 19, 1898. 
My Dear Mr. Hoyt: Your letter of August 16 has been received. I appreciate 
most thoroughly the spirit of the letter, and assure you that you will find me ready 
to cooperate in every possible way. * * * i hope that we may have an interview 
at an early date. 

Yours, truly, 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



William R. Harper, Presided. 



The University of Chicag(>, 

( 'hicago, February 17, 1900. 
My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I am perfectly candid in saying tha.t the new bill which you 
have recently sent me comes very much nearer my ideal of the whole situation than 
anything that has yet been presented in definite form. I will take pleasure in pre- 
senting this to the committee at its next meeting in Chicago. 
Very truly, yours, 

William R. Harper, President. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Northwestern University, 

Evanston, III., June 39, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I have delayed longer than I intended to in answering your last letter. 
A few days ago I received the circulars which you forwarded. I feel entirely free 
now to go upon your committee, if you desire, or to render any other service that I 
can in support of a bill to establish a university of the United States. 
Yours very, truly, 

Henry Wade RoctErs, Ex-President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



140 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Lincoln University, 

Lincoln, 111., May 25, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Your circular letter of April 27 was duly received and contents have 
been noted. I certainly appreciate the sacrifice you are making for the cause you 
represent, and sympathize with you in the difiiculties you have encountered in 
prosecuting your plans. I regret that I am not in position to render any substantial 
assistance, but wish to say this much in view of the last sentence in the circular. 

Trusting that the conditions may become somewhat easier and that the project 
may reach abundant success, I am. 
Very cordially, yours, 

A. E. Turner, President. 
Hon. John W. 'Koyt, Washington, D. C. 



Lincoln University, 
Lincoln, Lll., February 6, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: Your circular letter of January 13 came to me promptly. I wish 
I were in a position to aid you more effectively than I seem to be able to do in the 
premises. Whatever moral support I am able to give you are at liberty to command. 
I am glad to know that the cause seems to be gaining strength. The impression had 
grown upon me that this was not the case. 
Wishing you the fullest measure of success, 
I remain, most faithfully, yours, 

A. E. Turner, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Knox College, 
Galeshiirg, III, October 26, 1897. 
My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I have your letter of October 19. I shall have pleasure in 
complying with its suggestions. I wish you success in your efforts. I shall be glad 
to give you such aid as I can. 
1 am, yours, very truly, 

John H. Finley, President. 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Knox College, 
Galesburg, III, July 8, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: I acknowledge, with sincerest thanks, the receipt of your timely 
and helpful letter of May 30, 1896, and of a copy of your exhaustive and unanswerable 
"reply" to "views of the minority," which I have read with profound and grateful 
interest. It anchors anew to the rock of certainty my faith in the sure coming of 
that one missing force, that grand consummating factor in our educational system, 
an ample, adequate, and rightly conceived " university of the United States." It is 
needed; there can be no Substitute for it; the authority of the Government to establish 
and maintain it is clear and unquestionable. As in years past, so now, and till the 
final triumph of the measure is achieved, should my life be spared, I shall count it 
an honor, a privilege, and a duty to do what I can to aid the movement for a national 
university. 

Most gratefully and cordially, yours, 

Newton Bateman, President. 
Hon. JoHN.W. U.o-iT:, Washington, D. C. 



Wabash College, 
CrawfordMnlle, Ind., April 23, 1897. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: I wish you great success in your efforts and regret 
that I can not serve you more fully. 
Sincerely, yours, 

G. S. Burroughs, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 141 

Wabash College, 
Crav:fordsriUe, Inch, October 27, 1S97. 
My Dear Sir: Your esteemed circular letter of the 19th instant is at hand and 
contents noted. I am pleased to be fully advised regarding the situation in reference 
to the national university. 

****** * 

Assuring you of my cordial good wishes and so much of cooperation as I am able 
to afford you, I am, my dear sir, with much respect, 
Sincerely, yours, 

Ct. S. BureouctHs, 

\_Pres'idei}t.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Wmlnngton, D. C. 



De Pauw University, 
Greencasile, IncL, Noremher 24, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Yours respecting the national university just received. I thank you 
for the printed matter, as well as your personal letter. I authorize you to sign my 
name to the committee- 
Very cordially, Hillary A. Gobin, 

\_Pre>iident.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Iowa State College of AciRiCTLTURE and the Mechanic Arts, 

Ames, loica, May 2, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of recent date regarding the university of 
the United States. I keep talking the matter in lectures now and then and hope to 
see it succeed. I can not give anj^ money to the enterprise at present, but I am 
deeply solicitous for the success of the enterprise. It is one of the needs of the United 
States. I hope it can be brought to recognition on the inart of Congress soon. 
Sincerely, 

Wm. Beardshear, 

\_President.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Drake University, 
Des Moines, Iowa, December 5, 1896. 
Yours of November 28 at hand. I am unalterably opposed to a sectarian school 
assuming for itself national titles and prerogatives, and I shall be proud of the honor 
of becoming one of the national committee to promote the establishment of the uni- 
versity of the United States. 

Most fraternally. Barton 0. Aylesworth, President. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Western ColleCtE, 
. Toledo, lovxi, December 23, 1896. 
Dear Sir: The various papers sent out by the committee, discussing the proposed 
university of the United States pro and con, I have read with much interest and 
endeavored to consider without bias. I must say that my conviction is settled that 
the movement is a wise one. The proposition that the proposed university is to be 
exclusively for post-graduate Avork inclines me the more strongly to the support of 
the project. You may place my name among the members of the national committee 
if you so desire. 

Yours, very truly, L. Book Walter, 

\_President.'] 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman Nationcd University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



142 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Amity Colle(4e, 
College Springs, Iowa, Decemher 16, 1896. 
Dear Sir: * * * You have my fullest sympathy in your great undertaking, 
and have full permission to use my name as a member of the national committee, if 
that is of any practical use. Wishing the movement final success, I have the honor 
to be, 

Yours, respectfully, 

J. M. LiTTLEJOHN, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Amity College, 
College Springs, Imva, November 10, 1897. 

My Dear Sm: Your letters and inclosed papers have been received. I have read 
with much interest your statements and am rejoiced to hear of the increasing inter- 
est manifested in the scheme to establish a national university.' I think there can 
only be one candid position on this matter, namely, that of favor toward the plan. 
I am satisfied no denominational institution, such as Bishop Hurst's university, can 
ever occupy the field, and no State institution is competent to supjaly the lacunae. 
Only a national university can fill the place at the very top of our national educa- 
tional system. I have nothing to add to or take away from the expression I sent you 
almost two years ago, the lapse of time having served to increase my sympathetic 
interest in this movement. 

In answer to your queries I will say (1) I do believe that the most effective 
work should be and ought to be done in the States. I think that State committees 
ought to be organized and to act in this matter. I think President Schaeffer of State 
IJni versify, or President Gates of Iowa College, Grinnell, would be good for the posi- 
tion. (2) I think that such a national rally in Washington would be a good thing. 
About the holidays would be convenient because advantage could be taken of col- 
lege recess to attend in larger numbers. (3) I do think that friends of the cause 
should begin to think of plans for endowments. I think that fellowships open to 
professors in the colleges of the United States, tenable, say for one or two years, and 
periodical lectureships, tenable for a number of years, would be a fine form of endow- 
ment. It would be a means of commanding a wide field of scholarship for spe- 
cialism and would arouse an interest among those who would prospectively be 
interested. 

I shall be pleased to aid you in any way I can at any time. You may count upon 
my increased interest and sympathy. 

Yours, for the success of this movement in behalf of the higher national education, 

J. Martin Littlejohn, 

\_President.'] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, LL. D., 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Upper Iowa University, 
Fayette, Iowa, November 25, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I am perfectly willing to join with others in asking Congress to estab- 
lish the post-graduate university of the United States. If you will inform me when 
the bill is likely to come up I will write our delegation in regard to the matter. 
Yours, very truly, 

J. M. BiSSELL, 

[President.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D, C. 



Central College, 
Pella, Imva, November 26, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of November 22, calling my attention to the efforts of your 
committee to establish the university of the United States, is at hand. In reply, let 
me say that I shall take pleasure in cooperating with others to this end. 
Very truly, yours, 

A. B. Chaffee, 

^President.} 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UlSriVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 143 

'Cornell College, 
Mount Vernon, Iowa, November 9, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: Your kind favor of the 19th and also one of the 30th are received 
and carefully noted. I appreciate your interest in this cause, and the merits and 
urgency of the cause, but I am constrained to say that partly l)y poor health and partly 
by having upon me more work than I can do, I am compelled to forego taking any 
active interest in the matter of the establishment of the university of the United 
States. Indeed, I am seeking to get less work upon me rather than more, and am 
compelled to decline many invitations on account of the obligations already upon 
me, so I hope you will pardon me in my inability to respond to your request for 
answers to the ciuestions which you raise. 

I am hardly able to advise as to which is the better time to hold your meet- 
ing, before or after the holidays, but would incline to the opinion that it would be 
better after, though you would be a lietter judge of that than I would. 

Again thanking you for your courtesy, and with best wishes, I remain, j'ours, as 
ever, very fraternally, 

AVm. F. Kings, 

{^President.'] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Pexx College, Oskaloosa, Iowa, December 3, 1896. 
Dear Sir: From the first time that my mind was called to the subject of a national 
university to the present moment I have entertained favorable impressions relative 
thereto. Additional investigation only increases my interest in the matter. It has 
my hearty approval. We should have buildings chaste in style and models in archi- 
tecture that would rival the Cajntol building in jioint of excellence. This great 
nation can not afford to neglect this matter. 
You are at liberty to use my name as a memlier of the national committee. 
Very sincerely, 

Absalom Rosenberger, President. 
Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Pexx College, Oshdoosa, lovxi, November 6, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: It will afford me pleasure to assist in stirring up the public mind 
in behalf of the national university. It will be my endeavor to call upon Mr. Lacey, 
our member of Congress, this afternoon in reference to the matter. 

In a day or two I hope to see Dr. Beardshaw, of the Iowa Agricultural College, 
and urge liim to take the initiative in the waj- of an Iowa campaign. 

I would think well of a demonstration after the holidays to urge Congress to 
faithful duty in this respect and would try to be present. 
Very sincerely, 

A. Rosexberger, 

[President. ] 
Hon. JoHX W. Hoyt, WasJiington, I). C. 



Pexx College, Oskaloosa, loiva, April 7, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I have read with deep interest the bill for the establishing of a national 
university. It seems to be simple, safe, and wise in its provisions. Every educator 
should hail with joy every effort put forth in this direction. 
Very truly, 

A. RoSEXBERC4ER, 

\_President.'] 
Hon. John AV. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Kansas State Agricultural College, 

Manhattan, Kans., April 29, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: Your favor of the 27th instant received. Replying, I will say that 
the proposal that a national university shall be established at the city of Washing- 
ton, D. C, meets with my most cordial and enthusiastic support. I have long felt 



144 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

that such an institution w6uld be of priceless value as the center of a truly American 
educational system; and, believing thus, I not only gladly assent to the use of my 
name in the revised list of members of the national committee, but trust that you 
will call upon me if at any time I can be of service in promoting an enterprise so 
excellent as the establishment of the institution proposed. 
Very truh', yours, 

Tho.s. E. Wiel, Presided. 
Mr. John Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Southwest Kansas Collecie, 

Winfield, Kam., December 3, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I take pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of your favor of recent 
date concerning the establishment of the university of the United States. Permit me 
to say that I am in hearty accord with your plan and efforts in this direction. Such 
an institution is just what we need to crown the educational system of our country. 
I sincerely hope that this plan will be consummated at an early date, and that 
America will establish and maintain the greatest educational institution in the world. 
I assure you of my warm support in this enterprise. 
Sincerely, yours, 

Q. A. Place, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Washburn College, 
Topeka, Kans., November 27, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I am dulj- in receipt of your circular, with inclosures, regarding the 
work of establishing a post graduate university of the United States. 

1 think the former letter, to which you allude, resulting in the formation of the 
committee of one hundred, did not reach this office since I took the chair of presi- 
dent. I am, however, in sympath}^ with the project, and shall be glad to do all I 
can to further its ends. I shall, therefore, be pleased to accept your invitation to 
' ' j oin y our forces. ' ' 

We shall be glad to receive for our college library such publications from time to 
time as may bear upon the subject. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

Geo. W. Herrick, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Boston, Mass., November 30, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 22d instant, for which and the 
inclosures please accept my thanks. Absence from home much of the time must be 
my excuse for unintentional lack of attention to your former communication. 

I am strongly in favor of every legitimate effort to promote American education. 
I have always "thought Washington's plan for a national university a wise one, and 
regretted that an early attempt had not been made to carry it out. 

Wishing to you, as to all other good men similarly employed, the blessing of God 
on your efforts to "advance learning among men," I subscribe myself, very respect- 
fully, yours, 

N. J. Morrison, 
[President of Fairmount College, Wichita, Kans.} 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman of National University Committee, WasJrington, D. C. 



Central University, 
Richmond, Ky., October S. 5, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: Your favor of 19th instant is to hand. In reply I will say that there 
is not much interest in this State to the question of a national university. It would 
be difficult to raise money to advance the scheme in this State. 

My mind has undergone a decided change on the subject. From a feeling of indiffer- 
ence and opposition I have come to look with favor on the scheme. I now think it 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 145 

would i)rove to be a great Ijlessing to our whole country, and an appropriate capstone 
to our great educational system, provided, of coiir.se, it can be worked out practically. 
Very truly, etc., 

L. H. Blanton, 

[ Chancellor. ] 
Hon. J. W. HoYT; WaKli/ngton, D. C. 



Central University, 
Rtclimond, Ky., February 10, 1898. 
My Dear Sir: I have written my views as strongly as I could put them to both of 
our Kentucky Senators, and I hope the effect will be good. 

The Rev. W. H. Miley, of Marion, Ky., is Senator Deboe's pastor, and if you could 
get Mr. Miley to write him and urge him to use his influence in behalf of the measure 
it would help very much. * * * 

Hastily, yours, etc., L. H. Blanton, Chancellor. 

Governor John W. Hoyt, Wa.<^]iiagton, D. C. 



South Kentucky College, 
Ho-pldnsrille , Ky., December 4, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I most heartily indorse the movement, so ably promoted by our 
honorable chairman, to establish a national university at Washington, D. C. I 
shall do everything in my power to influence our Senators and Representatives in 
Congress to aid in its establishment. 

Yours, truly, S. S. Woolwine, President. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Wa^^hlngton, T). C. 



South Kentucky College, 
IIo23l'insville, Ky. , February S6, 1898. 
My Dear Sir: My delay in answering your letter must not be taken as an evidence 
of a lack of interest in the success of "The University of the United States." I wish 
you and your noble associates success in this most worthy effort to establish a 
national university. 

Yours, truly, ' S. S. Woolwine, 

\_President.'\ 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Ogden CollectE, Bowling Green, Ky., November 4, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of 
October 19 and 30, and also of documents concerning the University of the United 
States, and beg leave to say that I will give the matter my earnest attention and do 
what I can for the cause. Your letter of October 19 I will answer fully in a few 
days, when not so pressed for time. 
Truly, yours, 

Wm. a. Obenchain, President. 
Governor John W. Hoyt, Wasliington, I). C. 



Ogden College, Bowling Green, Ky., July 3, 1898. 
My Dear Sir: In answer to yours of the 23d of June, the effort to secure gifts for 
the endowment of chairs in the proposed national university is, I believe, a step in 
the right direction. Wealthy men and women could not give money for a better and 
nobler cause. If I had a wealthy friend or acquaintance contemplating such a deed 
I would lose no time in using any influence I might have to induce him to give to 
the national universitj*. But I have none such. 

* * * * -X- -x- * 

"S'ery truly, yours, 

Wm. a. ObenchaiNj President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Wasliington., D. C. 

S. Rep. 945 10 



146 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Ogden College, Bowling Green, Ky., May 8, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of 
the 27th of April. I was aware of the fact that the heads of some leading universi- 
ties in the East are opposed to a national university. It occurs to me, however, 
that these men might take a different view of the matter, or at least their opposi- 
tion be silenced if the pretensions of the ambitious prelate at the head of the so- 
called " American University " were made known to them. A national university 
controlled by any religious denomination is not to be thought of. It should be non- 
sectarian and nonpartisan, or not at all. A certain well-endowed Methodist univer- 
sity out here in the West started out on a broad and liberal basis. Its first fac- 
ulty was selected without reference to religious creed. In it were able men from nearly 
all the principal Protestant denominations. But it had hardly become well established 
when all the professors of other denominations were one by one turned out and 
their places filled with Methodists. This, of course, the trustees had a right to do, 
and I dare say it was very natural, but the very naturalness of the thing should 
make every friend of the higher education work for our proposed national univer- 
sity — a university that in this free land shall be free from sectarian control. 

* * * * -x- * * 

I have the honor to be, very truly, yours, 

Wm. a. Obenchain, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Ogden College, Bo^vling Green, Ky., June SO, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 28th 
instant, inclosing copy of the Depew bill (S. 3330). 

The delays in this matter are provoking, but this, in a cause so worthy, should 
make us all the more determined, notwithstanding the turmoil of State and country 
and the world. 

Very truly, yours, 

Wm. a. Obenchain, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Centre College, Danville, Ky., June 27, 1900. 
Honored and Dear Sir: It will afford me great pleasure to act on the "commit- 
tee of promotion" as one of its members. I heartily believe in the project. In fact, 
I wrote, when president of Lake Forest University, on the subject, holding that the 
future educational system of America will be a large number of genuine American 
colleges accessible to the young men of every State in the Union to teach the elemen- 
tary principles and discipline the mind, and one or more great university for post- 
graduate studies. The movement is in the right direction. Neither the English nor 
the German university should be transplanted to our shores, but a tertiura quid that 
is in perfect harmony with our institutions — social, political, and educational. I shall 
be glad to influence to the extent of my abihty our Senators and Kepresentatives. 
Yours sincerely, 

Wm. C. Eoberts, President, 
Hon. J. W, Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 

New Orleans, La., May 1, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of April 27 is received, containing request for presidents of 
agricultural and mechanical colleges to join forces with the "one hundred," even 
as the heads of the State universities have done. 

As the Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College is one of the 
two State universities of Louisiana, and is also a member of the American Association 
of Agricultural Colleges, the school has a double interest in your very laudable: 
undertaking. 



UNIVEESITY, OF THE UNITED STATES. 147 

You are at liberty to use my name, and I would be pleased to be a member of the 
' ' national committee to promote the establishment of the University of the United 
States." 

With best wishes for the success of the University of the United States, 
I am, most respectfully, 

Henry A. Hill, President. 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Bates College, Lewiston, Me., December S, 1897. 
Dear Sir: This is to assure you that I am in hearty sympathy with you and your 
associates in your efforts for the establishment of the University of the United States, 
and that you are at liberty to make such use of my name and position as shall seem 
to you to promise any aid to vour worthy enterprise. 

**■'***** 

Yours, truly, 

Geo. C. Chase, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Bates College, Lewiston, Me., July 2, 1900. 
Dear Sir: You have met with great discouragements, but your perseverance and 
courage seem to be worthy of your cause. * * * i have no suggestions to make, 
but shall be glad to cooperate with you in any way permitted me. 
Yours, sincerely, 

George C. Chase, President. 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Colby University, Waterville, Me., October 26, 1897. 

My Dear Sir: I am nmch interested in your circular letter of October 19. 1 am 
sure that your suggestion that a rally be called of members of the national oommittee 
in a great public meeting in Washington early, in the coming session of Congress, 
would it carried out prove very valuable in promoting the interests of the national 
university enterprise. My own time and effort have necessarily been so much 
absorbed in the problems which beset us in the management of this college that I 
have not been able to give such attention to the details of the great enterprise which 
you have so much at heart as to feel competent to suggest anything by way of advice 
regarding the topics you have touched upon. 

I beg to assure you of my profound interest in the purpose you have in mind, and 
of my great admiration for the devotion with which you are promoting it. 
Sincerely, yours, 

Nathaniel Butler, President. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The University of Maine, Orono, Me., October 14, 1901. 
Dear Dr. Hoyt: Your letter of October 12 is received. I am a firm believer in 
the university of the United States, and shall be pleased to hear you at the conven- 
tion of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. The program is, however, 
in the control of the executive committee. I will write the chairman to-day sug- 
gesting that the privileges of the floor be extended to you, with such opportunity as 
you (Jesire. 

Yours, very truly, 

A. W. Harris, President. 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



148 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Educational Department, Augusta, Me., July 1, 1896. 

Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of recent date, I have to say that I do not know 
anyone by the name of Pi'esident Boggs. If you can inform me where he lives, or 
who he is, or what institution he is connected with, I think I can easily get the 
information you desire. 

I am very glad to learn that you are making progress [in the national university 
movement] , but sorry to hear that it is not rapid enough to be satisfactory. Wish- 
ing you success in your labors, I am, 

Very truly, W. W. Stetson \_8upenniendent]. 

Hon. J. W. HoYT, Washhigtov, D. C. 



United States Naval Academy, 

Annapolis, Md. , January 27, 1899. 
Sir: In reply to your letter of January 26, asking permission to add my name to 
the list of members of the national committee to promote the establishment of the 
university of the United States, I have the honor to reply that you may do so. 

I heartily approve of the undertaking to establish "the universitv of the United 
States." 

Very respectfully, F. V. McNair, 

Rear-Admiral, U. S. Navy, Superintendent. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, 

Cliairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



United States Naval Academy, 

Annapolis, Md., October ^3, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I shall feel highly honored to be placed on the list of the national com- 
mittee as you suggest, providing its work is compatible with my loyalty to the 
Columbian University, Washington. 

I feel strongly the advantages of a university of the United States, but I have 
hoped that the Columbian University might be raised from its denominational to a 
national standard. 

Very truly, yours, Richard Wainwright 

, {^Suiierintendenf]. 

Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



St. John's College, 
Annapolis, Md., January 19, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th and to say 
that I cordially approve of the measures included in your bill, and shall be glad to 
do anything in my power toAvard promoting its interest. If I should be in Wash- 
ington before very long and should be able to do so, I will give myself the pleasure 
of calling on you in order to learn more details of the matter. 

Very sincerely, yours, Thomas Fell, President. 

Hon. John W, Hoyt, Washing'on, D. C. 



Maryland Agricultural College, 

College Park, Md., April 28, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: Yours received. You can enroll me as one anxious and willing to 
do whatever I can toward the establishment of the great institution. It has always 
occurred to me that our country has been remiss in not long since giving some 
organized condition to the many scientific lines of work that compose at present our 
working in Washington. Many of the departments of this great university may be 
considered as already established there, and when once put upon a proper basis 
would further the work going on to an extent hardh' dreamed of by those who 
have given the matter much consideration. The pamphlets, etc., have arrived and 
I thank you for the same. 
Very truly, yours, 

R. W. Sii>vester, President. 
John W. Hoyt, Chairman, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 149 

Maryland Agricultural College, 

Collegepark, Md., January 18, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I have your communication of January 15. I am fully in accord with 
the thoughts of your committee as to the establisliment of a national university. I 
can not think that an educational system will ever be complete, no matter how near 
it will approach to the same, until we have a great university in Washington, sup- 
ported by the various scientific bureaus, and doing just the work which your bill 
seems to outline for it. I wall be most happy to be one of the national committee 
and do whatever I can toward its advancement. 

Very truly, yours, R. W. Silvester, Premlent. 

Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 

Worxester, Mass. , March 28, 1896. 

Dear Governor Hoyt: I have for a long time intended to write you a few lines 
in reference to your work in the exploitation of the national university cause, espe- 
cially in reply to your kind letter received a few months ago. My delay in doing 
this is due to various causes, largely my expectation of having the pleasure of meet- 
ing you when I w5,s in Washington in January. In this, howevei', I was disap- 
pointed, and since my return I have been so busy with other matters as not to find 
time to carry out my intention. I have not, however, been unmindful of the work 
in which you have been engaged, and it has received constantly my sympathy and 
such assistance as I was able to give. I wish you to understand that I am thoroughly 
interested in the success of this movement, and am desirous of being called upon to 
assist in every way in my power. * * * However, it has occurred to me, as it 
doubtless has" to you, that, if the bill should pass Congress and the actual organization 
of the ground plan of the institution should be undertaken, a committee very mucli 
smaller than one hundred, composed of men representing various phases of educa- 
tional work, would be a more workable body and one in which each individual would 
be expected to be active and contributory. 

I expect to be in Washington in a few weeks, in attendance at the meeting of the 
National Academy, and I hope I may have the pleasure of meeting you at that time. 
I am yours, faithfully, 

T. C. Mendenhall \_Pres'uJn\t]. 

Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Benzonia College, Benzonia, Mich., December 6, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I leave you to imagine from the inclosed how heartily in sympathy 
with your movement I am. 

Sincerely, yours, • J. G. Rodger {^Presidmi^. 

Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Adrian College, Adrian, Mich., November 29, 1897. 
My' Dear Sir: Your letter concerning a national university is at hand, and in 
reply will say that I am in entire sympathy with the movement and will do all I 
can to see our men in Congress and Senate. * * * 
Very trulv, 

D. C. Thomas, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Adrian College, Adrian, Mich., July 17, 1900. 
Dear Sir': I gladly accept a place on the national committee to promote the estab- 
lishment of the University of the United States. I cordially wish the movement 
abundant success, and anything I can do to promote its success will be cheerfully done. 
Sincerely, 

D. Jones, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoy't, 

Chairman of National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



150 UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

The University of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, March 23, 1898. 
Dear Sir: What I meant in my former letter was this: That I could not, and did 
not, keep watch of the changes in the bill, and could not, therefore, say whether it 
was in every particular what it ought to be, but that the principle of the bill I was 
heartily in favor of. 

I am so pressed with duties that I can not now undertake to answer your question 
as to whether you have met the objections of Bishop Hurst and other universities. 
From a hasty reading of the bill I should think that you had. 
Very truly, yours, 

Cyrus Northrop, \_President.'\ 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The University of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, December 21, 1898. 
My Dear Dr. Hoyt: I have read carefully the proposed bill for a national univer- 
sity, and find no occasion to make the slightest criticism. 
Very truly, yours, 

Cyrus Northrop, [President.l 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, B. C. 



The University of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, January 19, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of January 15 has been received, together with a copy of the 
revised bill to establish the University of the United States. I have read the bill 
through again, and see no reason Avhy it should not pass. I have also written this 
morning to both Senator Davis anct Senator Nelson, urging them to support the 
measure. 

Very truly, yours, Cyrus Northrop, 

IPresident.l 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. 



The University of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, Jidy 30, 1901. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of July 6 has been received. 

I beg your pardon, but I must correct one phrase of your letter, namely, ' ' as shown 
by your (my) approval of the report submitted by President Harper." I did not 
approve of that report. No man who is in favor of a national university could 
approve of that report, and in my remarks I distinctly stated that I was in favor, and 
I am still in favor, of the university under the conditions named in my address. 
* * * * * * * 

Very truly, yours, Cyrus Northrop, 

\President.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



State Normal School, 

Duluth, Minn., July 3, 1901. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: With more pleasure than I can express I received your 
unexpected letter of June 29. You were delighted to learn that I am still on terra 
firma instead of on the "other side." I am equally delighted to learn that you still 
live and are able to fight for the good of the cause of a national university. I wish 
to be understood as standing by your side where we were in the early seventies. My 
only regret is that I shall be unable to be in Detroit at the coming meeting of the 
national association, where I could meet you face to face. 

* * * * * * * 

I sincerely hope and believe that you will be able to counteract the designs of the 
enemies of the university which Washington favored when we were but an infant 
nation. Our country is far greater now than in his time. We have become a world 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 151 

power, and that through our broad and hberal poUcy of educating the whole people. 
There can be no such thing as a monoply of higher education ])y a few universities, 
however eminent they mav have become. The conception of the University of the 
United States is as liro'ad as our nationality, and in my judgment it is mdispensable 
that it be worked out upon a scale worthy of the grandeur of the nation itself. 

Please count me as still a member of the old guard, willing and anxious to contend 
for the eternal right. Please keep me advised of your location, and if you can see 
anv work that isVithin my grasp, fail not to command my services. 

With sincere wishes for your restoration to health and a long life of u.sefulness, 
I remain, verv trulv, vour friend, 

Wm. F. Phelps, [licsident Director.] 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, WasJiington, D. C. 



State Normal School, 

Duluth, Minn., July 12, 1901. 
Dear Dr. Hoyt: I have ol)served by the proceedings, first, of the nationa 
council of education, and, second, of the general association, that the friends of the 
national university have won a complete victory over tlie committee that undertook 
to destroy it. I have seen only the meager account of the proceedings relating 
thereto in the daily papers. From them I judge that the debate in the council was 
very strong, and, judgino; by the result, it must have been very conclusive. The reso- 
lution pass'erl by the council was admirably drawn, and laid the opponents of the 
university rather genteelly, though effectively, to rest. The action of the general 
association yesterday, reaffirming its loyalty to the university, I think removes the 
subject from future contro^•ersial debate. 

Very truly, yours, Wm. F. Phelps, IResidcni Director.} 

Hon. Joiix W. Hoyt, Washingto)i, D. C. 



Carleton College, 
North field, Minn., April 29, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: Accept my thanks for your circular letter of the 27th instant, which 
gives so fully the facts concerning the failure of the last Congress to pass the ))ill for 
the proposed national university." That you are not completely discouraged shows a 
persistency of purpcjse very much to your honor. You have my sincere sympathy, 
and were "it not for the financial straits in which I find myself after twenty-nine 
years of labor in building up this northwestern college, I would send a contril)ution 
toward the expenses necessarily incurred in carrying forward the, work. As it is, 
only expressions of my interest and good will can go with my regrets that they can 
be to you of no cash value. 

With sincere personal regard, I remain, as ever, very cordially, yours, 

Jas. W. Strong, 

[^Fresidenl.'] 
Prof. John W. Hoyt, 'Washington, D. C. 



Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College, 

Mmj 3, 1899. 

My Dear Sir: Yours of April 27 has been received. In reply I beg leave to 
say that you may use my name in the revised list of members of the national com- 
mittee soon to be printed. 
Respectfully, 

E. H. Triplett, President. 

John W. Hoy't, Washington, D. C. 



University of Mississippi, October 6, 1901. 
Dear Sir: In reply to your recent letter I desire, in the first place, to correct your 
impression that I am the president of the association of agricultural colleges. The 
president of that association is, as I am informed, Dr. Goodale, of Amherst, Mass. 



152 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNTTED STATES. 

I have the honor to be the president of the National Association of State Universities. 
I fully appreciate what you have to say regarding the national university movement. 
At the same time, while you write forcibly regarding the relationship of the agri- 
cultural colleges to the National Government, I think you should lay stress also on 
the fact that the State universities likewise owe their foundation to the acts of Con- 
gress granting lands to the several States when these were organized. This state- 
ment is true of the State universities in all save four or live States. I inclose here- 
with a memorial to Congress, presented some years ago, which sets forth this rela- 
tionship. 

It is the purpose of the State universities to hold a meeting in Washington, begin- 
ning November 12 next, on which date the members of the association of agricul- 
tural colleges begin their annual meeting. There is a possibility that the two asso- 
ciations may, in some respects, at least, come together. I trust that they will be 
united in their efforts to promote advanced education. It would please me to see 
both associations take vigorous action in favor of a national university for graduate 
work and under governmental control. You will remember that representatives of 
the State universities were among the most aggressive supporters of the national 
university in Detroit last July. I trust that representatives of the agricultural 
colleges will take a similar stand. 

I have an impression that the representatives of the agricultural colleges possibly 
through the views of Dr. Charles W. Dabney, who was then Assistant Secretary of 
Agriculture, favors some scheme at Washington through which special educational 
privileges would be given to the graduates of agricultural colleges. This plan seems 
to have been based upon the idea that the agricultural colleges were the only institu- 
tions in the States which had been founded by the Federal Government. Those of 
us who represent State universities thus founded can not admit such a proposition, 
and are bound to insist that the institutions Avhich we represent are most important 
factors in the educational work of the country. The institutions which we represent 
would stand next in order to a national university if this should be founded. If this 
national university is properly ordered as to its courses it will be a most valuable 
help to the State universities, as well as to all educational efforts throughout the 
countr}^ 

I have read with interest your article recently published in Science. It is a strong 
presentation of the case of the national university. I hope that recent agitation of 
this matter will impress Congress with the importance of the interests of higher 
education, and will lead to favorable legislation not only with reference to the insti- 
tutions in the State alreadj^ founded upon Federal donations, but with reference to a 
national university. 

1 shall be in Washington November 12, and trust that I shall see you then. 

Yours, verj^ truly, > Eobert B. Fulton, 

[ Chancellor. ] 
Hon. John AV. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



MiLLSAPs College, Jachaon, Miss., February 27, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I desire to thank you heartily for the documents, etc., concerning the 
establishment of the national university, which you were kind enough to send at my 
request. 

They have been read with absorbing interest. 

In the face of such facts and arguments I don't see how any American can stand 
up against the establishment of an institution that would so advance the progress of 
America and increase the luster of her past attainments by an assurance of still greater 
achievements in the future. 

Wishing you success in the noble work in which you are engaged, I am very truly 
yours, 

R. Lee Cannon, 

[^President. ] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



extract from a letter addressed DECEMBER 18, 1901, BY PRESIDENT R. H. JESSE, 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, TO THE OTHER STATE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS. 

We who represent the State national system of education, with its roots in Federal 
land grants and with biennial appropriations from our respective Commonwealths, 
are interested, it seems to me, in the establishment of a great national university at 
Washington as a capsheaf of the system to which we already belong. Such a uni- 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 153 

versity should be strictly graduate in character. No one -would have it founded on 
any other condition. While it should be under the control of the Government at 
Washington, its charter should contain a clause freeing it from partisan politics. 
This point could be easily guarded. Let me leave the matter to your judgment. 



Central College, 
Fayette, Mo., December 1, 1897. 
My Deak Sir: I believe we ought to have in this country one great university, 
equal to any in the world. It is a reproach to our Republic that such an university 
has not already been founded. For years I have done what I could to bring about 
this realization. If I can serve you in this matter, kindly call on me. I heai'tilj' 
favor your plan of a University of the United States. 
Yours, truly, 

E. B. Ckaighe.\d, President. 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Central College, Fayette, Mo., Februarys, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: I am in favor of the national university. At the meeting of our 
State teachers' association I used the strongest possible language in support of ^ the 
enterprise. I will endeavor to write what I said on the subject and send it to you. 
If I can serve you in any way, kindly let me know.. 

Yours, truly, E. V>. Craighead, 

^President. ] 
Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. 



Montana College op Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, 

Bozeman, Mont. , May 2, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Believing, as I do, that the promotion of the establishment of the 
university of the United States is a very commendable object, I shall be pleased to 
have my name in the revised list of members of the national committee. 
I am, very truly, yours, 

James Reid, President. 
John Wesley Hoyt, Esq., 

Washington, D. C. 



The University of Montana, 
Missoida, Mont., December -2, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Your communication of November 22, 1897, is the first that I have 
received concerning the University of the United States. The University of Mon- 
tana was not opened until September, 1895, which was after the greater part of your 
committee had been named. 

I have watched the movement with a great deal of interest that has for its purpose 
the founding of the University of the United States. Our American system of edu- 
cation will not be complete until it is in effective operation. It will do more for the 
unification and development of the United States than any other force that can be 
organized. 

Anything that I can do to advance this cause will be done with pleasure and 
alacrity. 

Very truly, yours, Oscar J. Craig, President. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



* University op Montana, 

Missoida, Mont., April 24, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of April 18 received. The bill inclosed is the one that I 
have been indorsing. 
I sincerely hope that it may become a law. 

Y^ours, very truly, Oscar J. Craig, 



Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



IPresident.'] 



154 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

University of Montana, 

Missoula, Mont, June 8, 1901. 
Dear Sir: My faith in the final success of the national university has not wavered. 
Let us go on against all opposition. 

You may depend that 1 shall lose no opportunity to write and speak in the defense 
of our cause. 

Yours, very truly, Oscar J. Craig, 



Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



President. 



The University op Nebraska, 
Lincoln, Nebr., January 19, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I have your communication of January 15, in reference to the bill for a 
"university of the United States." I have looked over the bill and do not find any- 
thing to criticise in it. I have, however, not given it the full attention that I shall 
hope to in the near future, but at present I give it my tentative approval. With this 
tentative approval I am certainly willing for the present to cooperate Avith the 
national committee in trying to forward the movement. I have been for many 
years an advocate of a national university, and as I say above, as far as I now under- 
stand the bill, it appears to be well di-awn. 
Wishing you success in the movement, I am, 

Yours, very truly, Charles E. Bessby, 

Acting Chancellor. 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln, Nehr., .June 30, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: I have your very pleasant invitation to become a member of the 
national committee to promote the establishment of the university of the United 
States, and should be very glad indeed to accept the proffered honor. However, I 
am to remain in the office of chancellor but one month longer, when, on the first 
day of August, Dr. E. Benjamin Andrews will assume the office. In deference to 
him, I think it advisable that I should urge you to place his name on the list. Dr. 
Andrews is at present in Europe. He will return within a fortnight or so. I think 
he can be reached here certainly by the 20th of July. I do not know what his 
sentiments are in regard to the national university, but am inclined to think that 
he favors it. I trust that you can wait long enough to secure his name. 

If it is absolutely necessary that the list which is now being revised should be pub- 
lished before you can hear from Dr. Andrews, I am quite willing that my name 
should appear, so that this university may be represented. However, I trust that the 
other arrangement, which certainly is the better, can be made. 
Assuring you of my sympathy with the movement, I am, 

Very truly, yours, ^ 

Charles hi. Bessey, 

Acting Cliancellor. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Nebraska Wesleyan University, 

Lincoln, Nebr., June ^9, 1900. 
Honorable and Dear Sir: Referring to yours inviting me to become a member of 
" the committee of promotion" for the university of the United States, would say, 
that while I sjanpathize with the long-delayed enterprise, my relations to some other 
institutions will, I think, render it improper for me to accept the honor at the present 
time. With sincere desire that the miiversity may realize the desires of its founders, 
I remain, 

Very respectfully, yours, D. W. C. Huntington, 

[^President. ] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UlSTITED STATES. 155 

St. Louis, Mo., November^, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Your circular, dated October 19, came a few days ago. The four years 
of drought in Nebraska made it necessary for me to resign my place in Cotner Uni- 
versity and accept a situation here. I am still interested in your work and hope that 
our United States will yet have a great university, worthy of our country and people. 
I should be jile^sed to meet the workers in this cause in council at Washington. 

I know by experience that all great movements have to be carried by the units, 
not bj^ the tens or the hundreds. This is especially true in the beginning. My 
interest in educational work has cost me $12,000, and yet as soon as I recruit a little 
I shall be willing to help again. 
I have the honor to subscribe myself a lover of my race. 

Very sincerely, D. R. Dungan. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Washington, D. C. 

\_Ex-President of Cotner University, Bethany, Nehr.'\ 



Nevada State University, 

Reno, Nei\, May 1, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th ult., and I shall be glad 
to support you in every way that I can toward the promotion of the establishment 
of the university of the United States. I am. 

Very respectfully, yours, J. E. Stubbs, 

\_President. ] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, M'ashington, D. C. 



New Hampshire College of 
Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts, 

Durham, N. H., April 28, 1899. 
Dear Sir: It will give me great pleasure to have my name upon the list of the 
members of the national committee and to do what I can to further the interests of 
the project. I think the design is eminently wise. 
Yours, very truly, 

Chas. S. INIuRKLAND, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts 

AND Agricultural Experiment Stations, 

MesiUa Mark, N. Mex., January 26, 1900. 
Dear Sir: The national university authorized in the bill of which a copy was sent 
me seems to me well adapted to meet the desirable purpose in view, except * * * 
section 9 * * * . 

I shall be pleased to cooperate with the national committee in the manner and for 
the purpose stated in your letter. 

I am, respectfully, yours, Frederic W. Sanders, 

President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Headquarters United States Military' Academy, 

West Point, N. Y., March. 13, 1899. 
Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of January 26, the national university proposi- 
tion has my hearty indorsement and I gladly consent to have my name added to 
the national committee. 

Very respectfully, yours, . A. L. Mills, 

Colonel, U. S. Army, Snperintendent. 

Mr. John W. Hoyt, Chairman, Washington, D. C. 



156 UNIVERSITT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

University op the State of New York, 

Glens Falls, N. Y., January 11, 1898. 
My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 9th mstant, with its accompanying documents, 
etc., adddressed to me at Albany, has been forwarded to me here. * * * i am 
quite willing that my name should be added to the authorized list of members of 
the committee of 100 who are warmly in favor of the establishment of the I^niver- 
sity of the United States at Washington. 

You have my earnest sympathy in your efforts to promote this most useful object. 
The university convocation, held annually in the capitol at Albany, over which I 
have had the honor to preside for the past six years, has again and again given its 
emphatic sanction to this important project. I hope that your labors for this pur- 
pose may be crowned with abundant success. 

Most truly, yours, Anson Judd Upson, 

• YChanc<dlor.~\ 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Cornell University, 'Jit/iaca, N. Y., November 4, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of the 30th ultimo came duly to hand, and along with it the 
national university bill and the Senate documents. 1 have read the bill and made a 
cursory examination of the documents, and find nothing to suggest in addition to 
what I have said in previous communications, which I think you have already 
adopted. 

Yours, very truly, J. G. Schurman, 

\_President.'] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y., December 1, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I shall consider it an honor to be enrolled with those approving and 
desiring the foundation of the University of the United States. 
Most respectfully, 

M. Woolsey Stryker, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, LL. D., 

Chairman of Committee. 



Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y., December 3, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Yours of November 28 is at hand. 

I heartily favor the establishment of the University of the United States with no 
denominational preponderance for advanced graduate work, and representing the 
whole United States, all classes, denominations, and professions. Within a week or 
two I will write you a brief letter on the subject, and am willing you should use my 
name as a member of the national committee, and be assured that I will do all I can 
for the success of the enterprise. 

Yours, very sincerely, Geo. Wm. Smith, 

President of Colgate Universiti/. 
John W. Hoyt, Esq., }} ashington, D. C. 



Syracuse University, Syracuse, N. Y., February 24, 1900. 
My Dear Governor: If I understand your view of the case as expressed in your 
brief letter, I do not see any point at which I w'ould wish to take issue. I think 
that for the purposes of using the vast treasures of Washington in such graduate work 
as you intimate, a provision of Congress would be in the line of sound educational 
policy and prove to be extremely valuable to students in advanced courses of inves- 
tigation ancl study. 

Very truly, James R. Day, 

{President. ] 
Governor John W. Hoy't, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. . 157 

Syracuse University, Syracuse, JV. Y,, March 23, 1900. 
My Dear Governor: You are at liberty to use my name as you propose, if some of 
our prominent college presidents are to be upon your new list. 
Very truly, 

James K. Day, \_PremJc)it.'\ 
Governor John W. Hoyt, WaMngton, D. C. 



Alfred University, Alfred, X. Y., July 5, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I have watched with interest the work done hy your committee in the 
interest of the University of the United States, and shall be pleased to cooperate in 
any way I can to accomplish this desirable end, and you are at liberty to use my 
name as a member of the committee if you so desire. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

BooTHE C. Davis, President. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National Imversity Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Guilford College, Guilford College, N. C, April 28, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: I write to acknowledge receipt of your printed letter concerning the 
outlook for the national university, and to express my conviction that no stone should 
be left unturned until such university be established in Washington on the most liberal 
foundation. Everything is to be gained and nothing of real value to be lost by investi- 
gation, fearless and of the most thorough kind, in science, philosophy, and history; 
and I think if the vast sums spent in killing savages and supporting vast armaments 
were turned to the educating of our own people, both black and white, it would be 
infinitely better for the world and for America. 

If I can do anything to encourage the movement, I shall be glad to be of any 
service. 

With warm appreciation of your untiring and praiseworthy efforts, I am 
Yours, trulv, 

L. L. HoBBs, A. M., 

[Prrsidevt.'] 
John Wesley' Hoyt. 

Chairman National University Committee. 



Agricultural and Mechanical College for the Colored Race, 

Greensboro, N. C, April 27, 1899. 
Dear Sir: In reply to yours of recent date I beg to assure you of my hearty 
sympathy with the movement which yon represent and of my willingness to render 
all possible assistance. You have permission to use my name in the manner indi- 
cated, and I shall endeavor to bring what influence I can upon our representatives 
to the furtherance of this movement. 

Yours, truly, Jas. B. Dudley, President. 

Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Agricultural and Mechanical College for the Colored Race, 

Greensboro, N. C, January 23, 1900. 
Dear Sir: The establishment of the national university upon the lines indicated 
by the bill which you were kind enough to send me, is a splendid conception which 
I would enthusiastically support hj cooperation with the national committee or in 
any other way that my limited opportunities would permit. 
AVishing you much success, I am, yours, truly, 

Jas. B. Dudley, 

{^President^. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Wasltington, D. C. 



158 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

The North Carolina College op Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, 

West Raleigh, K C, April ^9, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your favor of April 27 and to 
say that it will give me great pleasure to assist in any way in my powder in promoting 
the cause of the university of the United States, and you can enroll my name in 
your revised list of the national committee and in any other way that may serve our 
great purpose. 

With my heartiest good wishes for the cause and for yourself personally, I am, 
Very respectfully, yours, 

Alexander Q. Holladay, President. 
Hon. John Wesley Hoyt, Washington^, D. C. 



Shaw University, 
Raleigh, N. C, May S, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: I have looked over carefully your circular letter of the 27th 
ultimo. I wish I was able to assist you financially, but as I am in home mission 
work here in the South you wdll understand the demands that there are upon me. 
_ I want to see the [nationaluniversity] enterprise pushed to a successful comple- 
tion, but do not know that I have any suggestions to make. You are on the ground 
and know the situation and I feel like heartily seconding anything that you attempt 
to do. 

Faithfully, yours, 

Chas. F. Meserve, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Ithaca, JST. Y., Jidy 6, 1901. 
Dear Sir: I am to-day in receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, addressed to me 
at the University of North Dakota. My friendliness toward the project of a national 
university along the lines previously outlined by you is in nowise changed. I have, 
however, come to feel that the project is not very feasible. I shall be glad to do 
anything in my power to realize the project for which you have worked so long and 
unselfishly, and you may rest assured that any influence I may be able to bring to 
bear upon our Senators and Representatives will be used in behalf of the university. 
Very truly, yours, 

W. Merrifield, 
\_President of University of North Dakota']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Ohio State University, Columbus, November 26, 1901. 

Dear Mr. Hoyt: I have your two communications and beg to say that I am not 
able financially, or from the standpoint of time, to give the question of a national 
university much consideration. It just happened that I was requested to present a 
paper at Washington. I simply spoke out my own mind, for which I am entirely 
and solely responsible. 

If I can encourage the project in anyway in the National Educational Association, 
or in the association of State universities, or in the association of agricultural colleges 
I shall be glad to do so. It is my personal judgment that these organizations will 
need to take some formal action and appoint representatives to present their support. 
I do not believe that individual support apart from this organized support will be 
sufficient. Until some si^ch organization is effected, I do not believe a single college 
president like myself would have much influence. 
Yours, very truly, 

W. O. Thompson, President. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Antioch College, Yelloiv Springs, Ohio, July 7, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Yours of recent date at Jiand and I note carefully what you have to 
say in regard to a national university, and most heartily agree with the general idea 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 159 

and plan. This country ought not be obhged to send its citizens abroad to complete 
their education. 

Very truly, W. A. Bell, [Presidejit^. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Kenyon College, Gambler, Ohio, April 30, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Replying to your note of April 4, let me say that I should be glad to 
become a member of the national university committee of four hundred. I am fully 
in sympathy with the plan as outlined in the Depew bill and shall be glad to be of 
any assistance that I can. > 

Yours, very truly, William F. Peirce, 

\_President.'] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

ChaiDiian National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Oxford College, Oxford, Ohio, January 7, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: Your valued favor of January 5 is before me. In reply I would 
state that I have just written to Senator Foraker, urging his cooperation and leader- 
ship in the movement to establish the university of the United States. I believe 
you will find him in sympathy with this work. I will be glad to do everything in 
my power to coojaerate in this most important movement. 
I am, yours, very truly, 

Faye Walker, 

\_President']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Oxford College, Oxford, Ohio, June 1, 1899. 

My Dear Mr. Hoyt: Your circular letter of April 27 is deeply interesting and full 
of valuable information. As a member of the national committee, I am taking a 
great deal of interest in this enterprise. Nothing is too good or too great for the 
United States of America. Nothing conceivable would more truly register the 
development of education in this country than the establishment at the national 
capital of a great national university. 

My idea is that all other colleges and universities should be so articulated as to 
lead up to and graduate from this supreme national school. In that single thought 
there is embodied the largest intellectual stimulus that can be furnished to the youth 
of our land. It is evident that we have outgrown the limitations that were set by 
our fathers. There shall be a larger America. Let there also be a larger horizon in 
the domain of education. Let us have for our country the same superb collegiate 
forces that France rejoices in at the University of Paris, Germany at Berlin, Bohemia 
at Prague, Switzerland at Geneva, and England at Oxford. Yale, Princeton, Leland 
Stanford, and Harvard are good. We covet something better. These are efficient, 
but not sufficient. The opening of the new century should witness the founding of 
the most magnificent university of the ages at the capital of the Union. 

I am at your command whenever you can use me. 

Yours, very sincerely, Faye Walker, 

\_President]. 

Hon. John Wesley Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, November 9, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: It is sad indeed that it requires so much labor to get Congress to 
act favorably on a measure of such great public utility [as the proposed national 
university] . 

Very truly, yours, 

C. W. Super, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



160 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, January 19, 1900. 

My Dear Sir: I am afraid that I have no power to further promote the cause of 
the national university at Washington. I have already written once or twice to one 
of our Senators, and he promised to give the subject careful attention, which is, of 
course, a perfectly safe i^romise to make. I will, however, w^rite to Senator 
McComas, who was a college classmate of mine,. and I may be able to do something 
toward securing his interest in the measure. 

I suspect that the strongest opposition [to the national university] comes from the 
proposed Methodist university in Washington. This I regard as one of the wildest 
schemes ever undertaken by anybody. A large proportion of the membership of 
the church are opposed to it, because it is probable that the money that goes into it 
is taken from local institutions. There is no more chance of a Methodist university 
in Washington, or whatever its name may be, amounting to anything worthy of the 
name of a university, for the next hundred years, than there is of the capital of the 
United States being removed to Topeka, Kans. But, then, there are no schemes so 
wild that they do not have some advocates, it seems. 

Very truly, yours, C. W. Super, 

[President] . 

Dr. J. W. HoYT, Wasihington, D. ('. 



Otterbein University, Westemlle, Ohio, December 30, 1897. 
Honored Sir: Yes, I wish to be considered as heartily in favor of the university 
of United States. I so said more than a year ago, but I supj)Ose that in some way 
the letter Avas lost. 

Very truly, yours, T. J. Sanders, 

\_President\. 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio, March 1, 1897. 

Dear Sir: Your favor of the 23d ultimo, inquiring as to whether or not I am 
heartily in sympathy with the efforts now being made^to secure the establishment 
of a national university at Washington, and whether in the event of my election to 
the membership of the national committee of one hundred I could give some time 
and effort to the movement, has been received. In reply, I beg leave to assure you 
that I am enthusiastically in favor of the establishment of such an institution, and, 
in fact, have been for a long time. Even before I knew of the organized effort that 
is being made in that direction I urged in favor of it, and was gratified when I learned 
of the existence of the National University Committee. 

As for time and energy, I have not overmuch of either to spare, but of such as I 
have I shall be glad to devote a generous portion to so important and far-reaching 
a'movement as this; in fact, I should hardly care to become identified with it unless 
I could be of some service to you. I inclose you herewith a list of the members of 
the committee to which you refer. It was largely through my efforts in 1893 that 
this committee was organized. It is now engagecl in the most comprehensive scien- 
tific investigation of the liquor problem ever undertaken. The first volume issued 
by this committee reached my desk this morning. 

My degrees are from Harvard University, and am professor of biology in Marietta 
College. 

I wish to be understood as being heartily in sympathy with your undertaking, and 
willing and ready to be of any possible service to you, and shall deem it a privilege 
and pleasure to serve you in any way possible. I shall be glad to hear further from 
you on this subject, and to receive full instruction from you in regard to how I can 
serve you. 

Believe lue, sir, yours, very respectfully, 

J. F. Jones, 

[^Fresiclenf] . 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio, March 16, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of the 3d instant was duly received, but on account of 
urgent engagements I have been unable to answer until now. My relations to the 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 161 

college at present are rather peculiar. Since the resignation of Dr. John W. Simpson 
last commencement I have had the entire charge of all executive work pertaining to 
the college. My colleague, Professor Chamberlain, has charge of the internal affairs 
of the institution, as for example, the curriculum and the administration of the policy 
of the institution as far as it applies to instruction, etc. 

The truth is neither one of us can properly be called "acting president." In view 
of this fact I hardly know what to say further in reply to your inquiry. With these 
facts laid before you I think that I will let the matter rest with you. I rather regret 
that I can not assume the title of ' ' acting president ' ' if that be necessary for my 
appointment, as I feel a very deep interest in your project and very much desii'e to 
see your ideas consummated, and should take very great pleasure in aiding you in 
every waj' possible. 

Yours, very truly, J. F. Jones, 

^Acting President]. 

Ex -Governor John W. Hoyt, LL. D., Washington, D. C. 



WiLBERKOECE UNIVERSITY, WUbet'force, Ohio, November 25, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 22d instant at hand. It seems to me that the projection 
of a national university at Washington should command instant and unanimous 
iudorsement, provided always that the youth of brains could get into it, without 
regard to social rank or race or faith. 

Very truly, yours, S. T. Mitchell, 

{^President'] . 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



WiLBERPORCE UNIVERSITY, 

Wilberforce, Ohio, December 18, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your circular by recent mail and to 
express my ardent hope that the noble enterprise you have in contemplation may 
have the generous support which its far-reaching utility warrants. 
Very truly, 

S. T. Mitchell, 

\_President'\. 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Western Reserve University", Adelbert College, 

Cleveland, Ohio, February 16, 1897. 
My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I judge that in the mind of the legislators and of the people 
the essential elements of the question are becoming separated from the accidental and 
the incidental. This is a very great gain. The proposition to establish an agency 
for graduate work of the highest sort is a very simple one. It is open, of course, to 
objections, but the objections, to my mind, are slight in comparison with the argu- 
ments that may be urged in favor of it. 

I also believe that the establishment of such a university would promote the inter- 
est of individual institutions which are now doing graduate work of a high order. 
Scholarship is promoted by scholarship. When it was proposed to establish foreign 
missionary societies in the" United States it was declared that we had need of all our 
religion at home. But the fact is that the more agencies of Christianity we send 
abrokd the larger Christianity we have at home. Therefore, I do believe that the 
establishment of a university of the United States for the doing of graduate work of 
the highest sort will promote the interests of universities already established which 
are now engaged in this service. 

I have a feeling that in the course of the next century American scholarship should 
lead the world. The \iniversity of the United States I think would be of great value 
in securing this great end. 

Believe me, with much regard, very truly, yours, 

Charles F. Thwing, 

\_President'\. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. G. 
S. Rep. 945 11 



162 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Western Eesekve University, Adelbert College, 

Cleveland, Ohio, October 29, 1897. 
My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I think that your plan is an excellent one. The methods 
that you suggest seem to me eminently wise and also feasible. In addition to these, 
I beg leave to suggest that each one write to such members of Congress as he may be 
able to influence, asking for their cooperation. 
I am, very truly, yours, 

Charles F. Thwing, 

[Presidenf]. 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Oklahoma AoRinuLTURAL and Mechanical College, 

Stillwater, Okla., January 23, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letters and in closures of the 13th and 15th 
instant. I beg to assure you that I fully indorse the great project itself as well as 
the proposed bill to carry it into execution. 

I am sorry, indeed, that so beneficent a purpose should have encountered so 
many and such unexpected difficulties. I trust, however, that you and your faith- 
ful fellow-laborers will be able to brush these aside and to secure the ultimate 
triumph of the enterprise to which you have so generously devoted your time and 
energy. 

Very respectfully, yours,' 

A. C. Scott, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Pacific University, 
Forest Grove, Oreg. , April 12, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your printed letter relating to the 
national university bill now pending. I have read with interest the copy of the 
bill, and shall be glad to do anything to further the scheme that 1 can do 
consistently. 

Sincerely, yours, 

Thos. McClelland, 

\_President'\ . 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Willamette University, 

Salem, Oreg., Jidy 10, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your kind invitation to me to accept membership in the committee of 
promotion for a national university I appreciate and accept. 

Trusting the movement may have the success it merits, and asking to be further 
informed as to my duties, etc., I am, 

Truly, yours, W. C. Hawley, 

President of the University. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



National Educational Association, 
First Pennsylvania State Normal School, 

MillersviUe, Pa., April 25, 1899. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: Permit me to acknowledge the receipt of your favor 
of the 21st instant and to say that I cheerfully give you permission to include my 
name in the list of members in the national committee on the establishment of the 
Universit]'' of the United States. 

Wishing you success, I am, sincerely, yours, 

E. 0. Lyte, 

\_President^ . 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 163 

SWARTHMORE CoLLEGE, 

SwartJiviore, Pa., November 3, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: Your letters have been received and carefully considered, as have 
also the documents marked 7, 8, 9, and 10. 

1. Your first query, as to State committees, involves an excellent suggestion, but I 
do not know of anyone to take a lead in this important work. I should be glad to 
aid by occasional contributions to the press, through our Philadelphia Ledger, did 
my time permit, which, I fear, it does not. 

2. A rally of the members of the national committee at Washington is also an 
excellent idea, and if not during the holidays, then I would say just after. 

******* 

The fact that our universities will not, and can not, with their facilities, cut loose 
from undergraduate work is reason enough in itself why this great nation should 
put the capsheaf to its educational system by doing what the nation can surely do, 
although beyond the reach of the institutions already established. 

And the religious aspect of the whole question is even of greater importance. We 
need a great national university where sectarianism and theological controversy and 
teaching shall be rigidly ruled out, but where religion, pure and simple, which our 
nation and our politicians have so long ignored because it has been buried under an 
avalanche of acrimonious theological discussion, shall be practicalh' taught. 

And what a commentary on a professedly Christian nation, followers of the Prince 
of Peace, that the only national institutions of learning are those directly connected 
with and leading to the un-Christian practice of war — the Natal Academy at Annapolis 
and the Military Academy at West Point. If the nation may rightfully maintain 
these, why should it not have a gi-eat institution covering art, science, literature, 
belles-lettres, etc., of the highest grade, where original research and investigation 
should be untrammeled by the training of undergraduate classes, or, as is sometimes 
the case in so-called universities, by secondary instruction and even kindergarten 
work? Let us have a university that will rival the greatest and best in the Old World, 
and not any patched-up substitute with changed name as a kind of supplement to 
the so-called universities already estaljlished, that we may arouse no jealousy on 
the part of these. Such a university as we all have in mind would attract students 
from abroad, and thus spread our republican i^rineiples, instead of sending abroad 
3,000 young people every year to seek beyond the sea what we could furnish them 
better and more safely at home. But I am called to other duties. Would that I 
could command millions to aid you in your great and unselfish work. You have my 
hearty sympathy, and I will do all that is in my power. 
Cordially, yours, 

Edwd. H. Magill, 

\_Presideni] . 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Waynesburg College, 
Waynesburg, Pa., October SO, 1901. 
My Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of a reprint of your article on "The 
proposed national university, " in a recent issue of Science. I had read the article 
in that journal with a great deal of interest, and am glad to know that you have not 
abandoned your laudable purpose. I wish that I were in a position to give you more 
substantial assistance in an enterprise for which I have the greatest sympathy. 
Most cordially, yours, 

A. E. Turner, 

\_President'] . 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Muhlenberg College, 
Allentovm, Pa., November 16, 1901. 
Dear Sir: Please accept my thanks for your kindness in sending me your article, 
reprinted from Science, October 4, 1901, on "The proposed national university," 
together with other documents on the subject. 

I have read them with deep interest, and regard your arguments as unanswerable. 
With highest esteem, yours, very truly, 

Theodore L. Seip, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



164 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

The Pennsylvania State College, 
State College, Center County, Fa., May 19, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: I have your circular letter of April 27, which I have read with great 
interest. My own time and energy have been so constantly absorbed with the 
demands of work here that I have really been unable to give anyactive and effective 
thought to the great enterprise which you are so courageously promoting. 

I have unquestioning faith in the wisdom of the movement and can not doubt that 
it will eventually succeed. It has been my purpose to call upon you at some time, 
more for the purpose of expressing my interest in the matter than with a view to 
making any suggestions, but my visits to Washington are not very frequent and are 
always hurried. I hope, however, to be able to carry out this purpose at no very 
distant day; in the meantime, be assured that you have my heartiest good wishes, 
both for yourself, personally, and for the enterprise. 

Faithfully, yours, Geo. W. Atherton, 

\_President^ . 
Hon. John Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Association of American Agricultural 

Colleges and Experiment Stations, 

State College, Pa., April '26, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Beplying to your favor of the 22d instant, allow me to express my high 
appreciation of the action of your committee in making the president of this associa- 
tion an ex officio member of the board of regents of the proposed national university. 
Our association has on more than one occasion indicated its hearty sj^mpathy with 
the aims of your organization, and it appreciates very highly the recognition implied 
in this action of the important relation which such a university must hold to the 
institutions represented in this association. 

Personally, I find myself in full accord with the objects aimed at by your organiza- 
tion, and should feel it an honor to be enrolled with it, as you are so kind as to sug- 
gest. You understand, I presume, that the presidency of this association is, in practice, 
held only one year by an individual, so that my name should be entered in my indi- 
vidual capacity rather than as president of the association. 
Very respectfully, yours, 

H. P. Armsby, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoy^t, Washington, D. C. 



Geneva College, 
Beaver Falls, Pa., December 14, 1896. 
Dear Sir: You are authorized to use my name as a member of the national com- 
mittee in connection with national university. 

You may use my name as one of those quite favorable to the establishment of such 
university' It would have facilities not possessed by institutions in other localities, 
and these facilities will necessarily be on the increase year by year. I hope you 
success. 

Yours, 

W. P. Johnston, 

\_President'] . 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Geneva College, 
Bearer Fall, Pa., November S3, 1897. 
Dear Mr. Hoyt: I will do what I can for the great project you have in hand. I 
have seemingly been negligent, but my son is home from theological school with 
typhoid fever. This, with my other cares, has put many interests out of my mind. 
I will work through our Congressmen as you desire. 
Yours, sincerely, 

AA\ P. Johnston. 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UKITED STATES. 165 

Uesinus College, 
CoUegeville, Pa., December 16, 1898. 
My Dear Sir: The movement for a university of the United States at the nation's 
capital should certainly receive the cordial indorsement of all college and university 
men. The extent to which it Avould interfere with other universities is not worth 
considering, when contrasted with the general elevating and strengthening influence 
of such an institution upon education in America. The men whose earnest efforts 
in behalf of the movement are now most freely criticised will be looked upon as 
benefactors by the coming generations. 
Very truly, yours, 

Henry T. Spaxgler, President. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The Pennsylvania State College, 
State College, Center County, Pa., March 5, 1898. 
My Dear Sir: I certainly did not intend to inquire about a Methodist university 
bill before Congress, and very positively hope such a thing will never be there — i. e., 
before Congress. 

It w'as the bill for a national university (University of the United States) on which 
I washed information, and I am under many obligations for your communication and 
inclosures on this, which I have just received. 

A^'ery truly, yours, I. Thornton Osmond, 

\_Dean of the Faculty^. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Brown University, 
Providence, R. I., August 2.5, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I thank you for your kind words of the 20th. While I can not 
now give detail, the work on which I am about to enter seems to me to have in it 
the possibility of a good deal of influence in favor of your grand scheme. 

Cordially, E. Benj. Andrews, 

\_President'] . 

Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



South Carolina College, 
Columbia, S. C, July 7, 1896. 

My Dear Sir: I have received your communication of May 30 (June 26) , relating 
to the national university movement, in which you are so deeply interested and for 
which you have so diligently labored. 

I sympathize very heartily with all you say as to sectarian opposition. What you 
describe is a repetition (with variations) of tactics Avith which all friends of State 
colleges and universities are familiar. 

While, of course, deeply interested in all that can promote the higher and the 
highest education, my mind can not free itself from difficulties presenting themselves 
sufficiently to justify my becoming a very active advocate of the founding of the 
national uuiversit^^ To speak of nothing more important, I fear the fitful, waver- 
ing, changing policy of successive Congresses [a danger wholly removed by the pend- 
ing bill], supposing the university once established. But I do not intend to urge, 
or even suggest, objections, but merely to intimate that, though on the whole I wish 
you success, I am hardly ready to enlist in active war. 

Still, I do wish you success, and especially that you may crush the opposition 
attacking you under the guise of religion. 
I am, yours, very truly, 

James Woodrow, President. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman of National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



166 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

College of Charleston, 
Charleston, S. C, November £5, 1897. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of j^our letter of the 22d instant, and 
of the Senate reports on the subject of the university of the United States. I have 
read with close attention and deep interest the arguments pro and con, as set forth 
in the reports. Always a strong believer in the need of a national university, the 
reports only strengthen my opinion that the establishment of a true university at 
the nation's capital is an imperative duty. 

The principal arguments against the national university are palpably prejudiced 
and from sources where opposition might be expected. The fact that we have to 
look to Germany for the institution that has the relation to Harvard, Columbia, and 
Johns Hopkins that Berlin University now holds is indeed a commentary upon our 
short-sighted legislation and statesmanship; and I believe that a real university, 
national in character, and situated at the seat of government, would be the mightiest 
power that could be devised for stimulating science, education, and independent 
investigation throughout the country, for removing sectionalism, and for rendering 
our people more homogeneous. 

I shall consider it an honor to have my name placed on your committee and shall 
take pleasure in doing what I can along the lines you suggest. 
Very truly, yours, 

Harrison Randolph, President. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Colored Normal, Industrial, Agricultural and 

Mechanical College op South Carolina, 

Orangeburg, S. C. , January 17, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your letters of January 13 and 15, and bill to establish the university 
of the United States, to hand. I do not know that my assistance will add any 
strength to the measure, for your associates are great leaders of American thought. 
I feel that if such men as Justice Fuller, Senator Edmunds, Professor Langley, and 
others associated with you can not persuade Congress and force the establishment of 
the needed university, it will be useless for me to say a word. 

Nevertheless, I see the need of the university, and for the reasons stated by you 
gentlemen the Government should establish it without delay. 

I write by this mail letters to Senators Tillman and McLaurin, a copy of which I 
inclose. 
Hoping that you will be successful in this great undertaking, 
I am, very respectfully, 

Thos. E. Miller, 

IPresident. ] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington D. C. 



South Dakota Agricultural College, 

Brookings, S. Dak., May 8, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I have no objection to use of my name in connection with the national 
university movement, and shall be glad indeed if I might in any way promote its 
interests. 

Respectfully, John W. Heston, President. 

Mr. John AV. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



University op South Dakota, 

Vermilion, S. Dak., October £4, 1901. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: I wish to thank you for the article you sent me regarding 
the proposed national university. It seems to me that your whole statement is a 
most lucid and admirable one, and your argument quite unanswerable. Unfortu- 
nately, your opponents will not trust to the strength of your argument, but rather to 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 167 

the strength of their own prejudices, and you will have a bitter fight before you. 
May I ask whether you expect to gain anything from the proposed meeting of State 
university presidents at Washington about November 12? 
With best thanks, I remain, very truly, yours, 

Garrett Droppers, 

^President] . 
Hon. J. W. HoYT, Washington, D. C. 



University op South Dakota, 

Vermilion, S. Dak., November 19, 1901. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: Your letter dated November 9 never reached me until 
I returned from Washington yesterday. I think I can assure you that both of our 
Senators will stand with you in your proposition if you can ever get the bill before 
the Senate. I feel certain that all the presidents of all the State universities at Wash- 
ington were with you in your proposition. I only regret that your health is not 
what it ought to be, enabling you to devote your attention to this subject with less 
risk to yourself. You may use my name in the place of President Mauck's, to whom 
I succeeded about two and a half years ago at Vermilion. 
With best wishes, I remain, yours, very truly, 

Garrett Droppers, 

[_President]. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Vanderbilt University, 
Nashville, Tenn., December 16, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: There is a great opportunity for the establishment of a national 
university at Washington. The arguments in favor of such an institution outweigh 
all that has been said against it. 

I am, with great respect, very truly, yours, 

J. H. KiRKLAND, Chancellor. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Bethel College, 
McKenzie, Tenn., November ^4, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Your favor is at hand. I am willing to do what I can for the estab- 
lishment of the university of the United States. 

I feel very much interested in the matter. It is certainly a move in the right 
direction. Yes, I am willing that my name should be used as a committeeman. 
I should be glad to see a copy of your Senate memorial. 

Yours, very truly, J- L. Dickens, 

{^Presidenf] . 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Cumberland University, 
Lebanon, Tenn., November 7, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Several papers sent to Chancellor Green have been placed in my hands 
for consideration. I desire to express my hearty sympathy for the movement 
toward the establishment of the national university, and I shall be glad to use my 
influence in securing the passage of the measure. 

Yours, very truly, J- I- D- Hinds, 

Dean of the College Faculty Cumberland University. 

Gov. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



168 UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Central Tennessee College, 

Nashville, Term., February 13, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Your circular and statement of the condition of the national university- 
movement received. * * * i favor the movement as a completion of our system 
of public-school system. 

Wishing you success, I am, yours, truly, J. Braden, 



Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



\_President\ . 



Henry College, Camjjhell, Tex., July S8, 1900. 
Dear Sir:" Replying to your communication of the 23d instant, allow me to 
express my hearty approval of the movement referred to, and to assure you of my 
earnest support and hearty cooperation. I accept with pleasure a place on the 
committee and place myself entirely at your disposal. 

I am, yours, fraternally, T. H. Bridges, 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



{President^ . 



Howard Payne College, 

. Broumicood, Tex., June £9, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Yours received. I have examined carefully the leaflets sent me relative 
to the national post-graduate university movement, and am glad to be counted with 
those who heartily favor the enterprise. It gives me j)leasure, therefore, to give my 
consent to be placed on the committee of promotion. . 

I shall be glad to receive all the documents you are sending out relative to this 
great movement. 

Very truly,Nyours, J. H. Grove, 

[President]. 
Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Add-Ran Christian University, 

Waco, Tex., November 26, 1S97. 
Dear Sir: The [national university] movement has my hearty approval and shall 
receive my continued indorsement so long as it maintains the standard and princi- 
ples of a great national university. 

Yours, truly, " Addison Clark, 

[Pre.sident']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Add-Ran Christian University, 

Waco, Tex., June 30, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your invitation to me to become a member of the national committee 
to promote the establishment of the uniA'ersity of the United States is accepted. I 
am in thorough sympathy. 

Cordially and fraternally, yours, Albert Buxton, Chancellor. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University, WasJdngton, D. C. 



University of Texas, 
Austin, Tex., March 39, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I beg to thank you very heartily for the publications sent me, and 
I take the liberty of expressing the wish that my name may be registered for any 



ITNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 169 

further publications, especially from your own pen, that may be available for 
distribution. 

I shall respect your wishes with reference to the final disposition of such documents. 
Very truly, yours, 

Thomas Fitz-Hugh, 

[President}. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. 



The Agricultural College of Utah, 

Logan, Utah, May 1, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Replying to yours of April 27 1 beg to say that you are at liberty to 
use my name, and I shall be pleased to do all I can to promote the establishment of 
a national university. 

Very truly, yours, J. M. Tanner, President. 

Mr. John Wesley Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



University of Virginia, 
Charlottesville, Ya., November 30, 1S97. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of November 22 came duly to hand, but owing to Thanks- 
giving holiday and other disturbing factors in our university work, I could not 
answer before. Allow me to say that I most heartily indorse your efforts toward the 
establishment of a national university and will do all in my power to influence our 
Congressmen and other representatives to give their support to the pending bill. 
Any use that you may be able to make of my name in the furtherance of this most 
necessary enterprise \o\\ are at liberty to make. 

I am more and more convinced each day that the multiplicity of colleges and uni- 
versities in America, doing the same Mork, requires some complemental institution 
in which their best men may be sifted and selected and still further trained for 
investigation an<l highei' teaching work. These conditions can only be met by a 
national institution of the highest possible grade. 

Very sincerely, yours, P. B. Barringer, 

YChairman']. 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. 



University of Virginia, 
Charlottesville, Ya., January 16, 1899. 
Dear Sir: I regret that pressure of business, resulting from unusual causes, will 
prevent my being able to appear before the Senate committee for you on next Tues- 
day. I am still a hearty advocate of the establishment of a national university and 
regret that I can not embrace this opportunity to be of service in that cause. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

P. B. Barringer, 

\_Chairman']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Eoanoke College, 
Salem, Ya., December 1, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: In spite of the fact that we have a number of good universities, and 
that some of them are taking rank among the leading institutions of the world, I can 
not help believing that the jiroposed university of the United States would, when 
fully established, exert a beneficial influence in the cause of higher education in 
America. Such a university in Washington would gradually acquire such a position 
of national importance that it would accomplish what can never be done by any 
denominational or sectarian institution, however richly endowed and however ably 
conducted. It seems to me that the proposed university, removed alike from politi- 
cal and sectarian control, would in time exert a powerful influence in introducing a 
better system in our higher education and in fixing a proper standard for academic 



170 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

degrees. As we can not have any central authority to regulate these matters we 
might at least derive great benefit from the silent power of a national example in the 
proposed university at the capital. 

Believe me, verj- sincerely, yours, 

Julius D. Dreher, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Hampden-Sydney College, 
Hampden Sydney, Va., Novewiber 27, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of the 22d instant, I beg to say that I shall 
be pleased to be counted among the friends of the proposed university of the United 
States and to exert what influence I possess in its behalf. 
Very truly, yours, 

Rich. McIlwaine, President. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman, etc., Washington, D. C. 



Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 

Blacksburg, Va., April 13, 1900. 
My Dear Dr. Hoyt: I am not aware of any opposition to the national university 
on the part of the land-grant colleges. It is possible there may be individual excep- 
tions, but I have heard of none. Wishing you abundant success in your efforts, 
I am yours, truly, 

J. M. McBryde, 

\_President'\. 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 

Blacksburg, Va. , July 4, 1900. 
Dear Sir: While I approve of and sympathize with your movement for a national 
university, my work here is so severe and confining that I fear I could give you but 
little active help. Whatever I can do with our Representatives in Congress you may 
rely upon my doing. Thanking you for your kind attention, 
I am yours, truly, 

J. M. McBryde, 

[President']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Washington Agricultural College and School of Science, 

Pullman, Wash., May 2, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of April 27 I beg to say that I am in hearty 
sympathy with the movement to promote the establishment of the university of the 
United States. I heartily approve the purpose of the committee to invite the 
cooperation of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges. I shall be pleased 
to cooperate in any way I may, and to have j'ou use my name in connection with 
the movement in any way which will promote its advancement. 
Very truly, 

E. A. Bryan, President. 

Hon. John Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The University of Washington, 

Seattle, Wash., January 22, 1900. 
Dear President Hoyt: I received your recent favor and will do all in my power to 
secure the proper aid for passing the national university bill. 
Yours, very sincerely, 

Frank P. Graves, 

[President']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. l7l 

The University op Washington, 

Seattle, Wash., Arignst 9, 1901. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: I was pleased to receive your favor of the 28th ultimo com- 
mending my administration in Washington. 

I shall be glad to do anything I can for the university of the United States. Presi- 
dent Baker made a noble fight at Detroit, did he not? 
Yours, sincerely, 

Frank P.- Graves, 

\^President'] . 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



West Virginia University', 

Morgantoim, W. To., Aprils?, 1899. 
My' Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of the 27th instant, I beg to say that it will 
give me very great pleasure to accept your invitation to serve on the national com- 
mittee to promote the establishment of the university of the United States. I 
sincerely hope the university may be established. I have been in favor of its estab- 
lishment as long as I have known of the movement. If I can assist in any possible 
way, please do not hesitate to command me. I have written to the West Virginia 
Senators and Representatives in Congress urging the importance of the measure, 
requesting them to use their influence to bring it to a successful issue. 
Very truly, yours, 

Jerome H. Raymond, 

\_President'\ . 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, • 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



West Virginia University, 

Morgantown, W. Va., May 6, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: Your favor of April 27 duly reached me. I had previously 
received a similar letter from you and had written you that I would be glad to serve 
on the connnittee, if desired, and would do anything possible to help forward the 
establishment of the university of the United States. I have written to both of the 
Senators and all of the Congressmen from this State. I inclose herewith letters 
received from them which will show you that they are all favorable. If each mem- 
ber of the committee writes to the Senators and Congressmen of his State and 
receives as favorable responses as these, it seems to me there ought to be no difficulty 
about establishing the university. I believe Senator Elkins would be an especially 
good man to push the measure. In the inclosed letter from him he says that he 
once had a speech prepared on the subject, and that if the question should come up 
before the Senate he would support it. When do you expect to have it come up? 

If there is anything further which I can do to aid the movement, please let me 
know and I shall be glad to be of service, for I am honestly and earnestly anxious to 
to see the Federal (Tovernment take this step. 

Very truly yours, Jerome H. Raymond, 

[President']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



West Virginia University, 

Morgantown, W., Va .,June 28, 1900. 

* ** * * * * * 

Can you not be present at the meeting of the National Educational Association at 
Charleston, S. C, July 7-13, and give an address before the department of higher 
education, on "The university of the United States?" I am president of the depart- 
ment of higher education, and would be very glad to include your name in the pro- 
gramme. Please let me hear from you at once regarding the matter. 
Hoping to hear from you favorably, 

I am, very truly, yours, Jerome H. Raymond, 

{^Pfesidentl. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



172 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

RiPON College, 
Eipon, Wis. , December 4, 1897. 
Deae Sie: In reply to your letter of the 22d ultimo, I would say that I am in favor 
of the establishment of such a university as you describe. 
Yours, very truly, 

RuFus C. Flagg, 

John W. Hoyt, LL. D., Washington, D. C. 



Lawrence Univeesity, 
Appleton, Wis., November 24, 1897. 
My Deae Sie: In reply to your communication concerning a national university, 
I desire to say that I am in favor of it. There are grave difficulties to be considered, 
and it is not easy to see how such a university can, in a secular government, satisfy 
those who feel that a true university should represent all the great and vital interests 
of a people's life, such as the religious, nor how, with contending political parties 
divided on great economic questions, it can save itself from criticism and opposition. 
Still our State universities have succeeded so well, and the good sense of the American 
people is such, that I believe, practically, the university would be favored by our 
citizens and become a most potent factor for good in the Republic. 
Truly, yours, 

S. Plantz, 
\_President.'\ 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Waslnngton, D. C. 



Lawrence University, 
Appleton, Wis., January SI, 1899. 
My Deae Sie: I am in receipt of your letter and am much interested to learn of 
your success with the Senate committee. I trust that you will be able to carry your 
measure through Congress, although I fear this is not the most favorable time for 
your work. If we could, however, follow the example of Germany, which founded 
the University of Strassburg to commemorate the victory over the French, it would 
be an admirable monument to the success of our arms. 

I am surprised at the statements you make concerning Bishop Hurst, although I 
have long been out of harmonj^ with his methods of pushing his cause. I believe 
I sent you a copy of the resolutions of the Methodist College Presidents' Association, 
in which they criticised his methods and plans to the board of trustees; if not, I 
should be pleased to send you a copy, as it might be of use to you. I have forgotten 
what I stated in the letter which I wrote you previously, but will inclose with this 
a substitute. 

Very truly, yours, S. Plantz, 

\^President.'] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. 



Lawrence University, 
Apipleton, Wis., February 1, 1899. 

My Dear Sie: I believe that the plan to establish a university of the United States 
is a wise and very important one for the following reasons: It would be a fitting con- 
summation to the best public-school system in existence; the vast collections at 
Washington make it surpass all other places in the United States as the proper seat of 
a great university; the Government alone has adequate resources to make such an 
institution all it can be and ought to be; it would do more than anything else to 
develop our civilization, promote our literature, advance science, and make us some- 
thing better than merely a great commercial people ; there is a growing interest in 
university work in our country and a demand for an institution unsurpassed in the 
world. 

Being a Government institution, it would be free from any sectarian or other influ- 
ences which would hinder the freedom and independence of the scholar. 

The argument against the plan on the ground that it would become the cat's-paw 
of politics is answered in the good sense of the American people and the experience 
and great success of our State universities. The fear that such an institution would 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 173 

contribute to liberalism and irreligion is a subtle want of faith in the ability of 
Christianity to hold its own among a company of earnest truth seekers and scholars; 
and, finally, the attempts of two rival religious bodies to build up universities at the 
national capital to influence thought in the direction of their tenets make it impor- 
tant to establish the university of the United States now, before these schools get so 
firmly established that the founding of a Govermnent institution would be considered 
by many as an opposition. It deserves also to be added that no private institution 
or institutions can hope to secure the means to develop a university with near the 
usefulness and vahie that one sustained by the Government might possess. 
Truly, yours, 

S. Plantz, President. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Beloit College, 
Beloit, Wis., December 1, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of recent date regarding the national 
committee of one hundred in the interests of tlie establishment of the university of 
the United States. While I am not conversant enough with the methods proposed 
for the university to have positive convictions regarding the importance of its estab- 
lishment, I am interested in all that concerns the highest educational facilities for our 
country, and am willing to have my name placed on your committee if you desire. 
Sincerely, yours, 

Edward D. Eaton, 

[Prmdeni.] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The University of Wyoming, 

Laramie, Wyo., January 4, 1902. 
Dear Dr. Hoy't: The inclosed is a copy of the resolutions unanimously adopted by 
our faculty, and a copy of the same was also adopted by our State board of examiners 
and by the State superintendent of education, and copies of both will be forwarded 
to the President of the United States and to Mr. Andrew Carnegie. 
Yours, very truly, 

Elmer E. Smiley, President. 
I hope the resolutions meet with your approval. 

Hon. John W. Hoy"t, Washington, D. C. 

resolutions. 

Whereas we take an honorable pride in the fact that the University of Wyoming 
belongs to the State-national system of education, with its roots in the Federal land 
grants and with biennial appropriations from our Commonwealth ; and 

Whereas we most heartily indorse the establishment of a great national university 
under Government control as a capsheaf of the system to which we already belong, 
which idea the first president of the University of Wyoming, ex-Governor John W. 
Hoj'-t, has been for many years foremost in advocating: Therefore be it 

Resolved, That we earnestly recommend the acceptance by Congress of the gift of 
Mr. Andrew Carnegie, and its use for the establishment of a national university at 
AVashington, D. C, under Government control and strictly graduate in character; and 

Resolved, That we express our belief that a national university at Washington, D. C. , 
would be most valuable in effecting a federation of our State universities, and, by 
cooperation with the same in its scientific investigations, exercising an influence for 
good over the institutions thus affiliated with it. 



President. 



Secretary. 



Cambridge, Mass., March S8, 1896. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: Your kind letter has been received this morning. 
It is not strange that in the quiet seclusion in which I have endeavored to carry 
on my studies in recent years my still lagging upon the stage should have been 



174 UNIVERSITY OF THE UlSriTED STATES. 

unknown to you; and all the more since a very severe accident at the beginning of 
the last summer removed me from all active participation in the affairs of the day. 
For a long time I was confined to my bed, and even now I am limping around upon 
a stick, and likely to continue in this condition for some months to come. I have 
passed the Psalmist's limit of three score years and ten, and only desire to retain my 
energies long enough to dispose of the work which I still have in hand, and which 
ought to have been disposed of long ago. 

Should I be restored to strength and energy, I shall sympathize and shall endeavor 
to act to the best of my ability in behalf of the higher education. But at present I 
am comparatively powerless in this direction, and am only a much interested observer. 
Yet my faith and confidence have been suffering in recent years by reason of the 
scattering of the energies which ought to have been concentrated long ago upon the 
great work. 

In general, my apprehensions have been excited by the manifest indications that 
people suppose money only to be needed for the end desired, and by the fear that 
the essential need of men is left out of sight even at present. We have not leaders 
in scholarship, science, and art in sufficient numVjers to supply the demands already 
existing. So-called universities, to supply increasing local ambitions, are continually 
springing into life; and the one essential, of an adequate number of competent men 
to guide the instruction and awaken the needful stimulus and incentives, seems to be 
growing less and less understood. 

The Americanism needed has to be sacrificed by the overwhelming importation of 
foreign teachers, unless the other tendency, to measure prosperity and success by the 
unworthy method of gauging them by the number of students, be yielded to. So I 
have to keep up a continual mental strife against the impulse to pessimism. 

If we can once reach a level from which it can be distinctly seen that money and 
numbers are but means rather than ends, in the effort, we shall, in my belief, have 
made the greatest step toward the attainment of our hopes that could be desired. 

You have striven earnestly in this direction, and I wish you all possible success 
in its attainment. 

Very sincerely, yours, Benjamin Apthorp Gould, 

Astronomer, etc. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman, National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Commercial College op Kentucky University, 

Lexington, Ky., May 26, 1896. 
My Dear Governor: I have just received your reply to the university report, etc. 
It presents arguments and facts that can not be disputed. I regret, however, that 
this report was needed. I can not see why such a grand enterprise does not meet with 
general favor. I had hoped that a favorable report would be unanimously adopted; 
also, that this session of Congress would give the desired legislation. 

You must not be discouraged. The national university enterprise is bound to suc- 
ceed. The people of America will some day hold your name in grateful remembrance 
for what you will achieve for them in this matter. They will recount your trials and 
triumphs. 

I would, indeed, be pleased to hear more on the matter whenever you can spare 
the time to write. I believe the bill will yet have friends from a source you now 
least expect. 

Your friend, Wilbur K. Smith, 

\_President.'\ 
Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Commercial College of Kentucky University, 

Lexington, Ky., December 1, 1899. 
My Dear Governor: As the next session of Congress is at hand, I have thought of 
the national university project, and am anxious to know what is being done toward 
its advancement. I expect to be in Washington between the 13th and 15th instant, 
and any work you wish done to forward this great project you have only to com- 
mand me and I am at your service. It is bound to succeed. 
Yours, sincerely, 

W. K. Smith, 

\_President']. 
Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 175 

Sibley College, Cornell University, 

Ithaca, N. Y. , Februani S, 1S99. 
My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I hope that you reached home in good order after your trip 
to Philadelphia, as I did, and enjoyed a very pleasant visit while there. I think it 
was a great success, and believe that the opposition Mas a decided advantage as 
awakening more interest than would have been otherwise secured, and insuring more 
attention to the facts and reasons of the movement. 

I have recently been looking over the bill rather carefully and talking it over with 
those interested in the plan. Here are a few suggestions that may possibly help to 
improve the scheme as it now stands. Of course the whole must be evolved, the out- 
come of experience, after it is once set going. 
Yours, truly, 

Eobert H. Thurston, 

{^Director']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



University of the State of New York, 

Albanii, X. Y., February 9, 1897. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: I have taken occasion in the last two or three months to 
look over the pros and cons of the national university question, and have also heard 
restated arguments against it by some of its ablest opponents. ]My investigation has 
convinced me that the Aveight of argument is overwhelmingly on the side of such an 
institution, and that the time has fully come when it should be started. In _my tes- 
timony before the joint committee on the library I had constantly in mind the 
probable development in AVashington, and tried to exert what influence I could in 
the right direction. I can see no possible hope of a wholly satisfactory solution to 
the university question in America except by the creation of a national university in 
Washington. I wish you would send me all the available literature you have on the 
subject, and be sure that I receive promptly anything new that is printed. You 
may count on me as an ardent friend of the proposition and ready to do anything in 
my power to bring it about at the earliest practicable day. 
Yours, very truly, 

Melvil Dewey, 
Secretary of University. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



University of the State of New York, 

Albany, X. Y., June 15, 1897. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: We have put the national university prominent on our 
convocation programme for Wednesday. I wish you could be here in person to lead 
the discussion. If that is impossible, can't you stir up sone of the best men in the 
country to come? I am sending by this mail the convocation programme to your 
entire list of coworkers, feut a little note from you to some of the men you know to 
be most interested might settle the matter. Is it not possible for you to come? 
Yours very truly, 

Melvil Dewey, 

\_Secretary'] . 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



University of the State of New York, 

Albany, N. Y., November 1, 1897. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: It seems to me we should try to pass the act for the 
national university at the earliest possible day, with a provision that it shall take full 
effect on the one hundredth anniversary. * * * i want to do all I can to help 
you, for I believe more and more in the practical wisdom of the proposed national 
university. 

Yours, very truly, 

Melvil Dewey, 

\_Secretary']. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



176 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

University op the State op New York, 

Albany, N. Y., January 26, 1898. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: Pretty much all good work is done under discouragements 
similar to yours, but where it is pushed with the intelligence and zeal you have 
shown it always succeeds in the end. * * * 

I have often thought and am on the lookout for the man of means who might give 
the money we need for this campaign. Perhaps we shall find him. In the mean- 
time keep up your courage. Your recent decisions seem to me the wisest under the 
circumstances. It is only a matter of time when the results of your labors will lay 
the substantial foundations of the greatest university in the world. 
Yours, very truly, 

Melvil Dewey, 

[^Secretary'] . 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, B. C. 



The University op Chicago, Department op Geology, 

Chicago, June 29, 1896. 
My Dear Dr. Hoyt: I thank you very sincerely for your letter of the 30th ultimo 
relative to the status of the movement for the national university. From what I 
have been able to gather from this point of view, the movement has been gaining 
strength. It is a matter of profound regret that there should be any active opposi- 
tion from educators interested in an enterprise which is very laudable in itself, but 
which should not be regarded as a rival movement. I have no doubt the enterprise 
will at length succeed. 

. Very truly, yours, T. C. Chamberlin, 

[Formerly President University of Wisconsin']. 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



The University op Chicago, Department op Geology, 

Chicago, June 27, 1898. 
My Dear Dr. Hoyt: I am very glad to learn through your circular letters of the 
23d instant of the progress being made toward the establishment of a national uni- 
versity. I have fbund my interest in the movement steadily growing and have 
purposed to discuss the subject through the press or the magazines, but thus far have 
found my immediate duties pressing me to such an extent as to lead to its postpone- 
ment. I sincerely hope the movement will issue into success at an early day. 
Very truly, yours, 

T. C. Chamberlin, 
V {Formerly President of the University of Wisconsin}. 

Dr. J. W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



American Academy op Political and Social Science, 

Station B, Philadelphia, January 28, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: Your favor came to hand in due time, and I have written as strong 
a letter as I can. I hope that something can be done at this session. 

Please call on me freely from the other end of the line. I expect to be in Chicago 

after next week and of course will take up the fight there to the best of my ability. 

Very truly, yours. 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Edmund J. James. 



University of Chicago, 

Chicago, III., November 1, 1901. 
My Dear Dr. Hoyt: 1 am obliged to you for a reprint of your paper on "A pro- 
posed national university." I shall read it with much interest. You will note that 
I was the only member of the National Teachers' Association committee who refused 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 177 

to sign the last report. The reason they gave for my refusal, that I was out of the 
country, was only a partial one. The fact is that I did not sympathize with that 
report at all. 

Faithfully, yours, 

Edmund J. James. 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Johns Hopkins University, 

Baltimore, Md., December 20, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: I have read with interest your letter of December 1 regarding the 
university of the United States. It is a subject which has long concerned me. I 
should be glad to promote it in some effective way, but just now I am disabled by a 
nervous breakdown and am obliged to take a long-needed rest and a vacation. In a 
month or two I hope to return to Baltimore from Jamaica, and perhaps I shall be 
able in future to lend some aid or cooperation in promoting the great object of a 
national university. 

Very sincerely, H. B. Adams, 

[Director of Department of Historical and Political Science]. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Law School of the Cincinnati College, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, March 5, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: It was a pleasure to me to be able to say a word in support of the 
national university plan at the National Historical Society meeting, but I find it 
impracticable to accept the position you speak of on the committee of one hundred. 
I am drawing out of all such positions and obligations as far as may be, for none 
ought to be merely nominal, and my leisure not being sufficient to do any effective 
work, I can only consistently sustain myself in necessary withdrawals by declining 
new engagements. 

Thanking you cordially and wishing vou success, I remain, truly, yours, 

J. D. Cox, 
\_Dean of the Faculty}. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Norwood, Va., April 6, 1900. 
My Dear Sir: The university of the United States will yet be a success. List the 
great capitalists and secure them, and the balance will fall into line. 
Your sincere friend, 

William D. Cabell. 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Marthas Vineyard Summer Institute, 

Cottage City, 3fass., June 28, 1898. 

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of circular concerning the national university. I need 
not say that it will give me pleasure to do anything in my power to favor the enter- 
prise. I believe you have a copy of the pamphlet containing the paper which I read 
upon this subject some years ago "before the National Educational Association at Nash- 
ville, Tenn. * * * 

We have colleges enough and universities enough for the ordinary purposes for 
which these institutions are usually founded. AVhat I want to see established is a 
university whose entire work shall be wholly beyond what any institution in the 
countrv is now doing. * * * In my judgment, all the work of this proposed 
institution should be entirely beyond what is now being done. This work should 
be at the extreme confines of our" present knowledge. What others are doing this 
institution should let alone. It should attempt to do what would otherwise not be 
done. It seems to me that the whole aim of such an institution ought to be to 

S. Kep. 945 12 



178 U2TIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

push further the hmits of the knowledge of the human race in every direction. 
What an opportunity there would be for such an institution to aid commerce, to 
study ocean currents, icebergs, tides, the tidal waves, the weather, storms, every- 
thing connected with meteorology — but I will not specify further. The entire 
scheme was outlined in the paper to which I have referred. I hope Congress may 
be moved by some power to perform this most important work. 
With great respect, I am, sincerely, yours, 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



William A. Mowry, 

IPresidentl. 



BiCKLER Academy, 
Austin, Tex., February ^8, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: I have read in the Arena for March with profound interest your 
latest patriotic appeal to every American citizen in behalf of the university of the 
United States, the fond dream of the revered Father of his Country, which the best 
spirits of the land, since his death, have so zealously endeavored to realize. 

Will you permit one from the ranks to make a suggestion? It strikes me that if, in 
addition to the noble band now enlisted in this grand and necessary work, auxiliary 
corps of college and university bred men and women (who are to act as a nucleus 
around which could cluster all other friends of the university of the United States) 
were forthwith organized in each State and Territory of the Union for the specific 
purpose of winning over to immediate favorable legislative action in this momentous 
matter every Senator and Representative of the Fifty-fifth Congress, the consumma- 
tion so devoutly wished for would soon be brought about. 

Each State auxiliar}^ corps of course is to be subject to the direction of and in all 
things to cooperate with the executive council of the national university committee 
of one hundred. 

With sentiments of highest regard, yours to command, 

Jacob Bicklee, 

[ Princijjal'] . 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



New York City, July 2, 1901. 

My Dear Sir: I beg to apologize for the delay in replying to your letter of the 
24th instant, \vhich I was very glad to receive, with the printed matter concerning 
the national university. 

The necessity of such an institution struck me on my very arrival in this country. 
In vain I looked right and left to see anything of that kind; in vain I examined 
nearly all the catalogues of the leading universities here, in order to see which of 
them corresponded to, or at least approached, to a certain extent, the high institu- 
tions of continental Europe; but I must confess 1 could find none. Nor was I bewil- 
dered by the attractive catalogues of some of the universities in the United States, 
which on first look con^'ey the impression that the respective high institutions are 
fully equipped to meet the demands of the progressive people of this country. I 
therefore heartily congratulate you on the pains and efforts you have already taken, 
and continue still to take, to raise the standard of the university education of the 
people of the United States, which should be inferior to none, if not superior to that 
of the Old World. 

The national university ought to be such as to attract the admiration of both the 
New and the Old World"! It ought to be the nursery through which high culture 
should be diffused in all parts of the United States, if not beyond its limits. Such 
is in short the ideal which, though an outsider, I conceive for the national university. 
It would really be an insult to the memory of George AVashington if the people of 
this country, on account of petty jealousies and local interests, did not carry out the 
will of one of the greatest men of the world. 

Thanking you again for remembering me, I am, yours, truly, 

Theodore P. Ion, 
\_Professor of International Law in the National University, Washington, D. C] 

Hon. John Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 179 

University of Georgia, Athens, Ga., November 22, 1898. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: On reaching home I take this first opportunity pre- 
sented to acknowledge receipt of your very kind note of 17th instant. * * * i 
regret that I had not opportunity to take leave of you in person. It will give me 
pleasure to receive the documents to which you refer, and I shall be most glad to 
serve upon the general committee of the national university. I am quite sure our 
efforts — though somewhat diverse in character — -tend to the same great end. 

With best wishes for your health and strength, and assurances of distinguished 
consideration, I am, 

Eespectfully and faithfully, yours, 

H. C. White. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



New York City, February S, 1897. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: I believe firmly that the great work in education for 
our country, of which my special work, literature, should form a part, is to be most 
perfectly realized by a new national organization, free from sect, free from the dic- 
tation of those who are not themselves educators, with freedom to teach as an essen- 
tial part of its programme, and reaching out to the new always. 
Sincerely, 

Charles Sprague Smith, 
Late Professor of History at Columbia College, New York City. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. G. 



New York City, April 6, 1897. 
My Dear Governor Hoyt: I agree entirely with you about the necessity of con- 
centrating; nor did I wish other action on your part than such as your cooperation 
would afford, given in such a way as to further our common aim in the national 
university. My special work goes forward finelj^; indeed, I find myself in the same 
position you are in — the possibilities magnificent, but the greatest wisdom and con- 
centration needed. My audience went away from the last conference full of enthu- 
siasm, and the work will broaden here and extend elsewhere quite as far as I can 
attend to it. 

The Washington movement I shall wish to join in the spirit with your move- 
ment; it maj' be wiser for the present to have it stop there. 

Shall attend to Washington matters before I leave town for summer. Every good 
fortune the gods bestow be yours in your determined effort, an effort as sure of 
ultimate success as the world of to-morrow's sunrising. 
Sincerely, 

Charles Sprague Smith, 
[Formerly Professor of History at Columbia University, New York.'\ 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Gloucester, Mass., July 31, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: I wish you every success in your work for a national university, and 
regret that I am so useless a helper. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

Charles Sprague Smith, 
Formerly Professor of History in Columbia College, New York City. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Cincinnati, Ohio, October 10, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Acknowledging receipt of your favor of October 3, allow me to assure 
you of my hearty approval of the project to establish a national university. It will 



180 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

afford me pleasure to accept your kind offer to enroll me as a member of your com- 
mittee, and to promote its objects so far as my time and ability will permit. 
With best wishes for the success of your committee, I remain, 
Very respectfully, yours, 

F. W. Langdon, 
lEx-President Cincinnati Society of Natural History.} 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Cincinnati, Ohio, February 14, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: Acknowledging your favor of February 10, 1897, I am glad to 
congratulate you and the committee in general on the more favorable outlook for a 
nonsectarian post-graduate university on a broad foundation. 

I regret that I can not resiDond to your appeal for financial assistance, for in com- 
mon with yourself and many others I have suffered financially in the prevailing 
depression. 

As regards the "titles," for which you ask, I possess none excepting plain M. D., 
by means of which I earn my living. I hold a teaching chair in a medical college, 
and am president of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, but these, as well as 
various other honorary positions in scientific bodies, are of no pecuniary advantage, 
and not really ' ' titles, ' ' to my view. 

With kind regards, I remain, yours, very truly, 

F. W. Langdon, 
President Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Paris, France, May 20, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: Your letter of April 10, addressed to me at Minneapolis, was for- 
warded to me at this place by Dr. Grant, who also says he wrote you a brief reply, 
expressing the opinion that I would be pleased to become a member of the national 
committee of one hundred, to promote the proposed national university, or "Uni- 
versity of the United States." I shall indeed be glad to serve on that committee. 
While my time and labor are necessarily devoted to the survey with which I am con- 
nected, I may find some opportunity to aid in the measures the executive committee 
may decide upon. 

I remain, however, in Paris during the present year, where I am pursuing some 
geological work which I could not well do at home. 

Eespectfully, N. H. Winchell, 

\_State Geologist of Minnesota. ] 

Dr. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, 

Minneaijolis, Minn., July 8, 1896. 

My Dear Sir: I have received yours of May 30. Having been a year absent in 
Europe, I have not been cognizant of the progress and obstacles of the movement for 
a national university, and this letter is the first intimation I have had for over a year 
of the condition of that movement. 

I am sorry, as a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to learn of the active 
opposition of the American University and its authorities to the proposition which 
has been so long and so ably urged by yourself and your colleagues. 

Without attempting here to enter into the merits of the case, I can not help men- 
tioning a parallel which has occurred in the State of Minnesota, the only difference 
being the state of advancement of the institutions concerned. 

Some ten years ago the president of the only Methodist university of the State, in 
one of his commencement orations, made an unwarranted attack upon the State 
University, on the ground that denominational institutions have always filled and 
do now fill every need of the people in the line of education, and that the State 
institutions are unnecessary and "conspicuous failures." I did not believe in such a 
view of the relative merits of the two classes of institutions named, and I took occa- 
sion to say so in a public address, in which I studied the whole question of the origin 
of governmental education as contrasted with sectarian institutions. A copy of this 



UNIVERSITr OF THE UNITED STATES. 181 

address I send you by mail. The only difference that I can see between the case 
now discussed at Washington and the case which we had in Minnesota consists in 
this : That in Minnesota the institutions concerned were already established, and in 
the District of Columbia the institutions concerned are seeking to be established. I 
consider that there is no justification of the opposition of denominational interests 
in the general movement for a national university. 

Very truly, yours, N. H. Winchell, 

\_State Geologist of Minnesota'] . 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, Minn. , May 12, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of April 27, 
regarding the university of the United States, and would have done so before, but 
have been absent from the city for a few days. It is with feelings of regret that I 
read of the determined opposition to the university bill both outside and inside the 
Senate committee. And in this very connection it seems to me clear that the best 
thing I can do to aid in opposing this opposition is to resign from the national com- 
mittee, in order that my place may be taken by some one who can be of much more 
aid than I possibly can. I now exjoect to be away from home during the summer. 
My influence is so small when here, and my finances will not allow me to be of even 
pecuniary assistance, that there is no question in regard to the step to be taken. I 
must ask you, therefore, to accept my resignation. Believe me, however, to be 
deeply interested in the end toward which you are so earnestly working. When 
convenient, I trust that you will favor me with literature regarding the progress of 
the work. 

Very truly, yours, U. S. Grant, 

\_Staie Geologist'] . 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The American Geologist, 
Minneapolis, Minn., February 23, 1900. 
If ever a measure deserved success by reason of plucky perseverance on the part 
of those supporting it, not mentioning its own merits, it is that of the university 
of the United States, under your guidance. I hope the present Congress will enact 
the measure. I have written a letter to Hon. Knute Nelson, Senator from Minnesota, 
of which a copy is inclosed herewith. 

With best wishes, very truly, N. H. Winchell, 

\_8tate Geologist of Minnesota].. 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Offices Board of Education, 
Neiu York City, September IS, 1898. 
Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of September 12, inviting 
me to become a member of the national committee to promote the establishment of 
the university of the United States. I should be most happy, under other circum- 
stances, to accept the honor you propose, and to devote as much time and energy as 
possible to the furtherance of the objects of your committee. I have, however, 
already accepted an invitation to become a member of a similar committee authorized 
by the national council of education. I could not possibly work for more than one 
committee. 

Very respectfully, yours, William H. Maxwell, 

City Superintendent. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, July 2, 1899. 

My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 18th has been awaiting my return from an 
absence. 

I regret extremely that it is at present impossible for me to aid the cause of the 
national university movement in the manner in which you propose, as I already 



182 UNIVEESITY OE^ THE UNITED STATES. 

have several heavy demands on my purse. I do_, however, wish you all succe,ss in 
your most patriotic undertaking, and am deeply interested in it. 
With great respect, very truly, yours, 

Alexander Graham Bell. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Waskmgton, D. C. 



Kansas City, Mo., Februarys^, 1898. 

My Dear Governor: It affords me great pleasure to note, in the telegraphic news of 
this date, the statement of the material progress the national university project has 
made, under your chairmanship. 

I have always heen an ardent advocate of the national university scheme — not 
because it was suggested by Washington, but because it was needed. 

The ultra-conservatism that has heretofore governed the promotion of the enter- 
prise is very likely responsible for the delay in its realization. The project has been 
a century in taking shape, while all along it has had staunch friends and earnest 
advocates. It has never had the support of the people generally, and that support is 
necessary in this country. 'There is some reason for this apathy. The movement is 
good; the purpose of the enterprise is in the highest sense worthy of its founder 
and the nation. 

I believe this is the opportune time to place it well before the people. A wave of 
patriotism is sweeping the country; political prejudices and sectional narrowness are 
giving way to a broader and better love for country. 

If it will not conflict with the plans upon which the scheme is being promoted, I 
want to suggest that an appeal be made to the country, along purely patriotic lines, 
for the speedy realization of the national university. 

In line with this suggestion, I beg to hand you herewith a fairly good newspaper 
report of my "Peace memorial" address, delivered in this city about one year ago. 
Hon. Webster Davis, w^ho is now Assistant Secretary of the Interior, was mayor of 
Kansas City at that time and presided over the meeting I addressed. He is a par- 
ticular friend of mine and a friend of the project. 

You will note, if you read my story, that no mention is made as to the character 
of the "memorial" it is proposed to erect. I was saving that for a second address, 
which was written, but never delivered because of the death of Gen. J. 0. Shelby, 
who was an enthusiastic supporter of the scheme. The national university was in 
my mind when I gave my idea to the public. It was to form the central feature of 
my proposed memorial. 

I am quite certain, if Washington could be consulted, he would approve the idea of 
devoting his suggested national temple of learning to the ennobling jjurpose of com- 
memorating the glorious covenant of peace between the survivors of that terrible 
conflict which determined the stability of free institutions. 

This is merely a suggestion. I do not wish to foist my scheme upon you, but I am 
inclined to the belief that the national university would have comparatively easy 
sailing if made the central feature of some such patriotic movement. 

It would enlist at once the sympathy and support of every survivor of the war, 
both North and South. In its realization it would stand a perpetual source of inspira- 
tion to the youth of the land. But I will not tire you further with elaboration. 

Let me know what you think about this suggestion. If it is possible for anything 
to be done out here to assist your plans, I shall be very bappj^ to become identified 
in some manner with the movement. It is quite accidental that I write you on 
Washington's Birthday, but highly proper. 

With best regards, I am, respectfully, yours, 

E. D. Kathrens. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University, Washington, D. C. 



Kansas City, Mo., April S4, 1898. 

My' Dear Governor: I am indebted to you for your very cordial and flattering 
letter of the 2d instant. I desire, also, to thank you for the printed matter concern- 
ing the status of the national university project. 

Washington is become our sacred city and it is the natural and logical home for 
every great national enterprise. I thought possibly the idea might be used in the 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 183 

interest of awakening a general pride in the university scheme, and at the same time 
accomj^lish much toward the cementing of sections and tlie growth of a purer 
patriotism. 
Tlie idea is yours to use in part or in toto if it can assist your ends in any measure. 
With sincerest regard, I am, very truly, yours, 

E. D. Kathkens. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



William Logan Rodman Post 1. G. A. R., 

Nev: Bedford, Mass., November 27, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: Permit me to thank j'ou heartily for your kind letter of the 25th 
instant, and for the various documents just received relative to a university for our 
nation. The latter I have hastily glanced at, but sufficiently to apprise me that they 
furnish "a monument more enduring than brass" to your cherished work, industry, 
foresight, and patriotism, and are a mine, or pi'eferably an arsenal, of argument in 
favor of the establishment of a national university. I am almost confounded by the 
general apathy of our people after such an exposition of the former advocacy of the 
founders of our great Republic, and the sanction of the great majority of our educa- 
tional leaders and statesmen. * * * Let me congratulate you on having so ]3er- 
fectly met the objections raised by the opponents of a really national university. 
[Senate Report 429, part 3, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session.] 

It is good to have lived in these closing years of the nineteenth century. May 
the work you have at heart culminate in realization ere long. 
Sincerely, yours, 

A. S. Cushman, 

[ilfajor]. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



East Orange, N. J., January 25, 1900. 

Dear Governor Hoyt: The time for action is most opportune. The country has 
just had its remembrance of Washington revived; the Army and Navy have placed 
us in a position among the nations where our diplomacy can become effective as the 
greatest of peace-loving and i^eace-enforcing powers; our commerce is widening and 
stimulating to the utmost our manufactures, and now the opening future for humanity 
invites us to the preeminence to ])e attained in intellectual development. The 
measure of our advance as a competitor in the world's markets is a demonstration 
of the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in conferring specific power upon 
Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited 
times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and 
discoveries. ' ' Our ' ' general welfare ' ' can be further advanced by making intellectual 
superiority our highest claim to command respect. 

Yours, always, A. S. Cushman, 

\_Major]. 

Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Memphis, June 29, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Pursuant to request, I acknowledge receipt of printed bill and circulars 
concerning university of United States. I appreciate the plan, scope, and reason, and 
am heartily in accord. 
Respectfully, 

Israel H. Peres. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Waslvington, D. C. 



The Riversville Power and Water Company, 

Greemvich, Conn., July 12, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I am deeply interested in the efforts looking toward the national uni- 
versity to be located at Washington. I am endeavoring to interest the Grand Army 
of the Republic in this work, and I would like to have you send me all of the data 



184 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

that you may have at hand on the question, and write me in just what position the 
matter stands in Congress — whether the Senate hill has been passed or whether it is 
lying on the table; and put me, if you please, in possession of all the facts concerning 
same. 

I shall endeavor to have this matter laid before the national encampment at Buffalo 
in September next. 

Kindly let me hear from you at your earliest convenience, and oblige. 
Yours, very truly. 



H. H. Adams. 



John Wesley Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



New York, N. Y., September 27, 1897. 

Dear Sir: You are very kind indeed to extend an invitation to me to join your 
committee. It will not make any difference with my work. I enter into this because 
I believe in the necessity for a university of the United States, and shall continue to 
work for its crystallization until it has been fully realized. 

I am already chairman of the committee api^ointed by the G. A. R. for the consid- 
eration and revision of school histories of the United States and the teaching of civics, 
etc. I have also been identified during the past five years with the placing of flags 
upon the public schools of the United States, so that my correspondents in the West 
are of such a character as to enable me to obtain their cooperation on behalf of the 
university of the United States. 
Yours, very truly, 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Henry Herschell Adams. 



New York City, June 10, 1896. 
Dear Sir: Your esteemed favor of June 4 is before me, and I have read with 
great interest what you say to us in regard to the establishment of the university 
of the United States. I certainly wish for you every success in the renewed efforts 
that you are now making for a realization of the desires and hopes of the dis- 
tinguished men of our country, beginning with the immortal Washington and con- 
tinuing with your distingushed committee of one hundred, embracing, as this 
committee does, many of the most distinguished men of our country. Such an 
effort could not fail to arouse my sympathy, nor could I fail to express to you the 
fact of my cordial interest in your meritorious undertaking. * * * The Mem- 
orial Hall, or Battle Abbey of the South, to which you allude, now engages my most 
serious attention as well as many other matters of somewhat less importance, but 
this will not prevent me from a consideration, at the proper time, of the subject 
that you have placed before me. 

I am, my dear sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, 

C. B. Rouss. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



The American Authors' Guild, 

Neiv York, February 6, 1896. 
Dear Sir: On my return to town this morning I find the inclosures concerning 
the establishment of a national university. It is an able project, and it will give me 
pleasure to promote it by becoming an active member of the executive council or 
in any other way in which my voice or pen will prove of service. 
Very faithfully, yours, 

Jas. Grant Wilson. 
Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 185 

Washington, D. C, January 17, 1900. 

Dear Sir: I have examined the bill to establish a university of the United States, 
which accompanied your letter of the 15th instant. 

While there are minor features in which I could hope for amendment — as, for 
example, in the composition of the board of regents, in which, if the bar, medical, 
and historical associations are accorded representation, why should not the Ameri- 
can Society of Civil Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and 
the Society of Naval Architects be secured representation — yet, in order that what- 
ever force I may have to lend to the measure may be wholly an influence of coopera- 
tion, I am willing to amalgamate my interests into the unity of those who mean to 
support the bill without change. 
Very truly, yours, 

« G. W. LiTTLEHALES. 

Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, January 16, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Your plan suggested for the university of the United States is faultless, 
I heartily wish you great success. 
Yours, very truly, 

I. S. Stone, M. D. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Linden, Va., July 4, 1898. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of recent date, as also circulars, duly received. 
It is gratifying to note the cordial support the university is receiving from scholars 
generally throughout the country. 

It has resulted in Congress as I anticipated, nor do I expect any vigorous work 
from the present Senate * * * Committee on the University. 

L. C. LooMis. 
Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



New York, March 6, 1899. 
Dear Sir: You may use my name in your revision of the committee of one hun- 
dred to promote the establishment of the university of the United States. 
Yours, very truly, 

Ethan Allen. 
John W. Hoyt, Esq., 

Chairman National University Committee. 



New York, January 6, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of December 30, 1898, transmitting some leaflets on the sub- 
ject of a national university, was duly received. We thank you for the letter and 
for the inclosures, and hope that you will, as you promise in your letter, keep us 
posted concerning what you may do in this matter. 

When it becomes necessary for any representative from this association to appear 
at Washington in behalf of the bill providing for the reform of the consular service, 
the gentleman who represents us will take great pleasure in looking you up, and 
talking with you personally upon this subject, which we have very much at heart. 
Meanwhile, should you come to New York, it goes without saying, we shall be 
very glad to see you at our rooms. 

Yours, very truly. The Merchants' Association op New York, 

By Wm. R. Corwine. 
John W. Hoyt, Esq., 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



186 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

New York City, N. Y., March 5, 1899. 

Dear Sir: I have read with dee^D interest the matter you handed me concerning 
a '"national university," and truly hope you may succeed in this great and good 
work. Surely no country on earth is so well prepared to undertalEe and carry to 
final success such a work, and this country should stand ahead of all others in 
education. 

Please allow me to make a suggestion. I notice that you have with you on the 
committee many eminent men from nearly or quite all of the States, and owing to 
the great political pressure always around Congress it is hard work to get the required 
legislation for such a work. 

Would it not be easier for the representatives of your committee, with the help of 
friends in their several States, to have their several legislatures pass resolutions 
requesting their Senators and Representatives in Congress to favor the legislation 
necessary for this great need of our country? 

You may have already thought of this, if so, pardon the suggestion. Wishing 
you much success in this great undertaking, 
I remain, yours, truly, 

0. H. P. Cornell. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, November m, 1901. 

My Dear Sir: Many thanks for the documents you kindly sent me in relation to 
a national university. 

I am heart and soul in favor of the bill to establish a national university, but fear 
I can do but little to aid you in your great work. I wish I could do something. 

I live in Colorado, and am here in Government emjiloy — an attorney in Interior 
Department. I know our own Senators and Members well, as well as other Con- 
gressmen from the West, and Illinois, my native State. 

My home is Boulder, and Dr. Baker, who was here at National Association of 
State University Presidents the other day, president of our university, where I was 
a professor (law) for many years, read a paper in favor of a national university and 
exposing the weakness of the so-called memorial university that has been organized 
by the persistent work of such men as Bishop Hurst et al., whom you know better 
than I do. I am a Methodist myself, but have no sympathy with the bishop in this 
particular. 

If you think I can do anything let me know. 
Faithfully, yours, 

Jas. M. North. 

Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Philadelphia, Pa., November 1, 1897. 
Dear Sir and Colleague: Your earnest and efficient advocacy of the great uni- 
versity has enlisted my humble cooperation. * * * The ideal is grand, and 
would greatly elevate the intellectual standard of the cultivated American. 
Very sincerely, yours, 



Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Persifor Frazer. 



Chicago, III., February 6, 1896. 

My Dear Governor Hoyt: I take pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of the 
pamphlets, with your compliments, in regard to the United States university. 

It must be very gratifying, indeed, to you, as it is pleasant to us, to see that your 
efforts, almost entirely unaided, are at last being so greatly rewarded. The entire 
American Reiiublic is your debtor, and I trust that our legislators will early make it 
possible for you to carry out your magnificent plans and make a university, as is 
contemplated, the pride of Americans and the envy of the world beyond our borders. 
It will be your monument and I believe so regarded after you shall ha;ve crossed the 
divide. 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 187 

I inclose for your perusal an extract taken from the Chicago Times-Herald of the 
3d instant. 

When in Chicago don't fail to call on me. If I can at any time be of service to 
you, command me. 
Yours, truly, 

J. H. McGtbbons. 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Chicago, May 24, 1899. 
Dear Sir: Last week the National Business Men's Convention was held in Chicago, 
and Mr. John W. Ela, Mr. A. H. Revell, and one other were appointed a committee 
to draft a bill providing for putting the consular service of the country under civil- 
service law in case the bills already prepared do not cover the ground. 

It occurred to me that possibly Congress might look more favorably upon the 
establishment of a national university were it made apparent that a branch of 
instruction might be established in the curriculum, with a view of properly fitting 
men for this department of Government service. 

The consular service is notal^ly of little real help to the commercial interests of 
our country as now maintained, and if the suggestion made is of any practical value, 
the business men of the country might be made to see the importance of promoting 
the university. Certainly the university bill could have no more influential friends 
than the business men of the nation. This suggestion is made for what it is w'orth 
to you. [Such instruction has always been contemplated bj^ the National University 
Committee, and all the National University bills have provided for it.] 
Yours, very truly, 

Mrs. L. Brace Shattuck, 
Illinois Chairman George Washington Memorial Association. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Hurricane, Essex County, N. Y., July 30, 1900. 
Dear Sir: I should be most grateful to you for any documents you maybe able to 
send me regarding the work already done toward the foundation of a national uni- 
versity. The project is one in which I have long been deeply interested. I have 
also known of your interest in it, and I hope your efforts may soon be crowned with 
success. 

I am, yours, with many thanks and hopes, 

Thomas Davidson, 



Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Author of A History of Education, etc. 



Philadelphia, Pa., June 15, 1896. 
My Dear Sir: I have your favor of June 12, and have read it attentively. 
I sympathize, however, in your efforts [for a national university], and hope you 
may be successful. 

Very truly, yours, 

Sam. R. Shipley. 
John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



The Review of Reviews, 
13 Astor Place, Neiv York, April 22, 1897. 
Dear Goa^ernor Hoyt: I have been exces.sively busj^ for some days, and my cor- 
respondence is therefore a little in arrears. I should be glad to have the documents 
you so kindly offered to send me concerning the proposed national university at 



188 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Washington. I can see many arguments in favor of such an undertaking, and if the 
gentlemen's names who are included in that committee of one hundred, especially 
the presidents of the great universities and colleges of the country, are zealously and 
thoroughly committed to the plan, I should regard the chief possible obstacle as 
removed in advance. * * * 

Believe me, sincerely, yours, Albert Shaw, 

[Editor.'] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The American Monthly Review of Reviews, 

13 Aster Place, New York, April 24, 1899 
My Dear Dr. Hoyt: I am just starting for the mountains to get my well-earned 
bit of summer vacation, and so I have only a chance to write you a line or two. I 
appreciate thoroughly your great services to the cause of education in this country, 
and wish I were in a position to be of use in this great project you have now on 
hand; but there are other matters having a direct and immediate claim on my 
resources, which would make it wholly impossible. 

Believe me, with very great respect, sincerely, yours, 

Albert Shaw, 

lEditor.'] 
Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Adams Building, 
Washington, D. C, June 7, 1899. 
My Dear Sir: Mr. Willard thanks Governor John W. Hoyt very much indeed for 
his letter and document regarding the miiversity of the United States, but wishes to 
say that he is not able to take any interest in the matter at this time. 
His health is not good and his time is fully occupied in other ways. 
Wishing you great success, I am, yours truly, 

C. C. Willard. 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



The Cosmopolitan Magazine, 
Irvington, N. Y., August 24, 1897. 
Dear Sir: While unable to take any part in the work which you have in hand, 
owing to the demands made upon me by the Cosmopolitan educational plans, I shall 
feel honored in having my name used upon your national committee as proposed in 
your favor of August 20. 
Sincerely, yours, 

John Brisben Walker. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman, National University Committee, 

Washington, D. C. 



National Galleries Company, 
Washington, D. C, July 18, 1897. 
Dear Governor Hoyt: Your favor of the 16th is duly received. I shall esteem 
it an honor to be added to the board of promotion for the university, and shall be 
glad to render all the more effort for it, under the responsibility of public identifica- 
tion therewith. 

Yours, most truly, Franklin W. Smith, 

[President of the Company.] 
Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 189 

The Security Trust and Life Insurance Company, 

Philadelphia, January 28, 1899. 
My Dear Governor: I received your letter, also the documents which you inclosed 
to me. I shall take great pleasure in reading them. I am greatly gratified to observe 
the interest which you have aroused in the proposed national university. 
With best wishes, believe me, yours, truly, 

RoBT. E. Patterson, 

l^President. ] 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. r. 



New York, Ajml 29, 1899. 
My Dear Governor: I have your printed circular of April 27, and regret, indeed, 
that there should have been such malevolent opposition to the national university 

bill. 

I shall be indeed glad to do anything in my power toward advancing it at the 
next session of Congress. You deserve great credit for the persistent energy you 
have displayed in trying to bring to a fulfillment this great measure which Wash- 
ington contemijlated. 

I am, as always, faithfully, yours, 

Asa Bird Gardiner. 

Hon. John 'Wesley Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Palmyra, N. Y., August 18, 1898. 
Dear Sir: I have felt a general interest in the projected univei'sity of the United 
States, and thank you for your letter of the 17th and the accompanying documents. 
1 would be pleased when you are distributing information upon that subject to be 
upon your mailing list. 

The usefulness of such an institution would be immeasurable, and I wish you and 
your associates all and speedy success in its promotion. 
Yours, with great respect, 

Pliny T. Sexton, 
[Regent of the University of the State of New York.] 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Palmyra, N. Y., August 23, 1898. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of the 19th and the mentioned further supply of documents 
concerning the university of the United States are received, adding to my obliga- 
tions to you. 

I will without douijt find much therein to interest me and encourage my hopes 
for the educational advancement of our country. 

Again thanking you, I am, yours, very truly, , 

Pliny T. Sexton. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Philadelphia, November 2, 1897. 
My Dear Sir: Although I have just returned after a five months' absence abroad, 
and although I find on my table an enormous mass of accumulated postal matter, 
yet I take pleasure in sending this very day the ofiicial documents to Senator Penrose. 
Although I have no longer a'settled home'(be.ing without any oflicial charge), I shall 
esteem "it both a pleasure and an honor to do whatever I can to help forward the 
proposed university. 

Believe me to be, with great respect, yours, faithfully, 

George Dana Boardman. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



190 UNIVERSITY OF THE UiSriTED STATES. 

Chicago, III. , June 10, 1898. 
Dear Mr. Hoyt: Your favor of May 23 is duly received, in reply to my letter of 
May 18. I shall be glad to receive a copy of the paper you are preparing concerning 
political and economic questions in a national university. 

It occurs to me that, if you have not already done so, a list of the graduate students 
in the several American universities, together with the expense attached to instructing 
them, with the limited range of professors whose lectures they can attend, will be a 
conclusive argument for the establishment of an institution wherein graduate work 
can be prosecuted. The capstone of our educational system is, as you say, a national 
university. 

With best wishes for the success of your noble efforts, 
I remain, yours, most cordially, 

Geo. H. Shibley. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Louisville, Ky., February 19, 1897. 
Dear Sir: Replying to your circular letter of the 17th instant, I beg to say that I 
shall be pleased to give prominence to the question of the establisliment of "the 
university of the United States" in commemoration of the Father of Our Country at 
all the 22d of February celebrations to be held in this city next w^eek. I believe it is 
a move in the right direction, and I sincerely hope that the efforts of your committee 
may be attended with success. 
Yours, very respectfully, 

Cteo. D. Todd, Mayor. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, 

Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 



Savannah, February 19, 1897. 
Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular of the 
17th instant on the subject of a national university. In the event of there being any 
celebration in this city on the 22d, whereat reference to the university will be appro- 
priate, it will afford me pleasure to have such reference made. 
With high respects, I am, your obedient servant, 

P. W. Meedum, Mayor. 
Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington. 



San Diego, Cal., March 8, 1897. 

Dear Sir: I have read your article in the Arena on our national university with 
a great deal of pleasure. For years I have taken a deep interest in this matter. 
We ought to found a national university at Washington that w' ould be an honor to 
a free and enlightened people and a blessing to the whole world. Nothing could 
cement us more firmly together, raise the standard of education and of everything 
entering into our national life, advance the progress of a true civilization, and send 
quickening and purifying influences into the whole nation more than to establish an 
ideal university at Washington that would be Avorthy of the American people. 

For many years, in view of the national university to be established at Washing- 
ton, I have been studying the ground plan of the ideal university, and I think I 
have discovered it. It would afford me great pleasure to submit this ground plan to 
the national committee, hoping they might find something in it that would be help- 
ful in the great work. 

I am a graduate of the University of Michigan and of the Chicago Theological 
Seminary, and was formerly professor of natural science in Washburn College, 



UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 191 

Topeka, Kans. For some years I have been a post chaplain in the United States 
Army (now retired), and Uve in San Diego, Cal. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Johns D. Parker, 
[Formerly Professor of Natural History in Washburn College, Topeka, Kans.l. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Wellesley Hills, November 14, 1898. 
Dear Sir: The American people will ever recognize and be grateful to you for the 
noble work which you have accomplished, in a critical time, in behalf of the national 
university. Should the present movement be smothered in the committee of fifteen, 
the cause can not die, and the university will certainly be built by the American 
people. I regard the national university more vital to the true interests and life of 
the American people than that great international project, the Nicaragua Canal, which 
a citizen of San Diego, Cal., certainly would never underestimate. 
I remain, yours, fraternally, and truly, 

■ Johns D. Parker. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



Atkinson, N. H., February 22, 1897. 

My Dear Sir: Yours has been duly received. I remember that I wrote in 
an article on college expenses, in which I urged a national university, and I am of 
the same opinion still, but I am not in a position to exert the influence I could wish. 
You deserve much praise for your earnest and persistent efforts and in the end, I 
know not when, success will reward you. I have received no documents, and shall 
be glad to have them. 

I was graduated from Dartmouth in 1844, and worked my own way through with 
no aid. I could not do it now. The whole expenses as given in the catalogue in my 
time were less than the tuition now. How can a poor young man who wishes to be 
independent, as T did, now get an education? 

Our Congress will spend money for everything else — this Congress is more than a 
"billion Congress" — whj^ not establish a university equal to, aye, better than those 
of Europe, where our young men can be prepared for every station in life, and every 
branch of knowledge be. taught by the most competent teachers? Many of our most 
gifted young men are too poor to go to Europe, or even to avail themselves of the 
advantages of our best institutions. Let the nation for the good of the people and 
its reputation among the nations, listen to your appeals. 

Very truly, yours, Wm. C. Todd. 

Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 

The following is an extract from the article mentioned in the Governor's letter. 

[Prom Education, Vol. IX, No. 1 (September, 1888), from an article on "College expenses," by Hon- 
Wm. C. Todd, Atkinson, N. H., p. 21.] 

If the General Government is to appropriate large sums for education, as is pro- 
posed by the Blair bill, why not establish a great national university, worthy of our 
nation, with the ablest professors and free tuition? Eighty years ago Jefferson said 
such an institution was a necessity, and should at once be created,' and such was the 
opinion of Washington, Adams, and Madison. Shall not the idea in the minds of 
these wise men be revived, and Congress be turned from the lower objects engross- 
ing it to the creation of a university equal to any other of which the world can now 
boast? No other nation has made such material progress, but it is far nobler to seek 
intellectual and moral advancement, so necessary to the j^erpetuity of our free 
institutions. 



Hydepark, Mass., February 28, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Will you kindly send me all the up-to-date material necessary for the 
intelligent discussion of the proposed national university? I have written to Senator 



192 UIMIVEESITT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Depew asking for a copy of his bill. Is the said bill favored by the committee of 
which you are the chairman? I am ardently in favor of the national university, and 
wish to give an address in Boston upon it before an association of liberal clergymen. 
Kindly address as below. 

Respectfully, yours, John Clarence Lee. 

Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 



New York, January SI, 1900. 
Dear Sir: Yours of January 27 is received and contents noted. According to my 
promise, I am sending to John Joy Edson, treasurer, my check for $100 for the cur- 
rent use of your committee. 

I regret that I can not undertake to do more now, as I am under obligations in 
other directions which I must fulfill. 
Wishing you great success in your important work, I am, yours, very truly, 

A. L. Barber. 
\_Also of Washington, D. C] 
John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 

o 



Library of Congress 
Branch Rinrlprv rnr.^ 



